Fleming Stephen A, Fleming Rachel A F, Peregoy Jennifer
Traverse Science, Inc., Mundelein IL, 60060 USA.
Traverse Science, Inc., Mundelein IL, 60060 USA.
J Dent. 2025 Jun;157:105715. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105715. Epub 2025 Mar 27.
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the cariogenicity of aspartame and explored mechanisms of action.
DATA, SOURCES, AND STUDY SELECTION: A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL on February 16th, 2024 (registered with PROSPERO CRD42024513463). Eligible studies evaluated the cariogenicity of aspartame in humans, animals, and dental samples compared to sucrose or other controls. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted on caries incidence, acidogenicity, oral bacterial composition, and mineralization for preclinical and clinical trials. Certainty was assessed using the GRADE framework.
Four studies in bovine blocks, seven preclinical trials in rats, and two clinical studies were identified. In clinical studies aspartame was less acidogenic than sucrose (standardized mean difference [95 % confidence interval]: 3.07 [-0.97, 7.10], very low certainty), and similar to water (-0.51 [-1.51, 0.48], low certainty). Preclinical studies indicated aspartame did not promote caries development (-0.01 [-0.31, 0.30], low certainty), reduced caries compared to sucrose (-2.51 [-3.50, -1.52], moderate certainty), but had minimal impact when added to sucrose (-0.53 [-1.29, 0.23], very low certainty), except when assessed in sulcal caries (-0.86 [-1.70, -0.02]). Aspartame had minimal effect on bacterial composition. Studies on bovine blocks indicated aspartame was less acidogenic and erosive than sucrose. While aspartame is a non-cariogenic alternative to sucrose, there is limited evidence supporting anti-cariogenicity. The reduction in caries observed with aspartame use is likely due to its role in minimizing sugar intake rather than biological activity. More long-term studies in humans are needed to fully assess aspartame's impact on oral health.
Replacement of sugar with aspartame may help maintain healthy oral pH in humans. Animals fed aspartame instead of sugar consistently develop fewer caries, and lab tests indicate aspartame lessens oral acids and dental erosion compared to sugar.
本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了阿斯巴甜的致龋性并探讨了其作用机制。
数据、来源和研究选择:于2024年2月16日在PubMed、科学网、Scopus和CENTRAL上进行了文献检索(在PROSPERO注册,注册号CRD42024513463)。符合条件的研究评估了与蔗糖或其他对照相比,阿斯巴甜在人类、动物和牙齿样本中的致龋性。对临床前和临床试验的龋齿发病率、产酸性、口腔细菌组成和矿化进行随机效应荟萃分析。使用GRADE框架评估证据确定性。
确定了四项关于牛牙块的研究、七项大鼠临床前试验和两项临床研究。在临床研究中,阿斯巴甜的产酸性低于蔗糖(标准化均值差[95%置信区间]:3.07[-0.97,7.10],极低确定性),与水相似(-0.51[-1.51,0.48],低确定性)。临床前研究表明,阿斯巴甜不会促进龋齿发展(-0.01[-0.31,0.30],低确定性),与蔗糖相比可减少龋齿(-2.51[-3.50,-1.52],中等确定性),但添加到蔗糖中时影响最小(-0.53[-1.29,0.23],极低确定性),但在窝沟龋评估中除外(-0.86[-1.70,-0.02])。阿斯巴甜对细菌组成影响最小。关于牛牙块的研究表明,阿斯巴甜的产酸性和腐蚀性低于蔗糖。虽然阿斯巴甜是蔗糖的非致龋替代品,但支持其抗龋性的证据有限。使用阿斯巴甜观察到的龋齿减少可能是由于其在减少糖摄入方面的作用,而非生物活性。需要更多关于人类的长期研究来全面评估阿斯巴甜对口腔健康的影响。
用阿斯巴甜替代糖可能有助于维持人类口腔的健康pH值。用阿斯巴甜而非糖喂养的动物龋齿发生率持续较低,实验室测试表明,与糖相比,阿斯巴甜可减少口腔酸和牙齿侵蚀。