Conclusion: Based on the results from the survey and the two variables chosen to effectively communicate that correlated with thehypothesis. It was hypothesized that teens who consumed sugary drinks, such as Coca-Cola, had a higher risk of developing dental caries. This was because the oral bacteria fed on the sugar left on the tooth surface and produced acids that damaged the enamel surface of the tooth. So, the graph above clearly supported the hypothesis because more Chinguacousy students had cavities while drinking Coca-Cola within different speeds and even out of the 3 participants, the data showed that ⅔ had cavities even though they did not drink Coca-Cola. So, with teens consuming sugary beverages, they are not taking care of their dental health, had bad oral hygiene practices, and social influences, which are the exact reasons why teens were at risk of developing cavities. It is also evident that in the data majority of the participants brushed their teeth, however, the speed of drinking and teens who stayed up very late and who did not brush their teeth on time could have led to the sugar remaining on the tooth surface and with consistent acid attacks. One type of bias that was identified was the age limitation, because the survey was about teenagers, so the results showed more 17-18 year old students than 13-16 year olds in that category. It was not incorrect that the age range still focused on teens, however, the survey leaned towards much older teens. I felt it was important to have a variety of different ages within the teenage group for more representative findings, because different age groups have different daily routines that would be different for teenagers in how they take care of their dental health. As mentioned, the majority were 17-18 years old, and they would drink more Coke than 13-14 year olds because they were more independent, had working jobs, and had the freedom to buy drinks of their own. So, having a diversified teenage category could have changed the data and provided a clearer understanding of just the students that drank Coke that influenced cavity formation. Secondly, the limited number of responses could only be between 12-15 could have also impacted the data because if I had more responses. I would have likely had a greater variety of ages and for the students who sipped Coke over an hour the results should be closer to the students that drink Coke over 30 minutes as the acid attacks are really bad for these two options. If I had more responses, I could have had more participants vote for that option, so I could compare, as I only had 2 students that sip Coke over an hour. Lastly, another source of bias came from the “Not applicable” group, who still showed a high cavity rate, which suggested other factors that could have led to the causes of having cavities. This could have been due to the oral hygiene routines, or maybe other consumed drinks or foods that were not fully controlled. The survey did not measure the other factors that had led to the participants having cavities, so because their cavities came from other sources than Coca-Cola consumption, their results disrupted the link between Coke and the number of cavities within the participants a little bit (only because they did not consume Coke specifically). Having that option still helped the dataset, but it impacted the idea because the focus was on the teens who consumed Coke. The “Not applicable” option had to be added because not everyone drank coke so, the 3 participants who drank a different sugary beverage answered that. I also did ask a question in the survey “When did you drink sugary beverages’’ and no one said “Not applicable’, so that means those 3 participants drank something else other than Coke.
New developmet of nHAP toothpaste would be good to introduce and visit dentist regualrily. =stronger enamel and fewer cavities.