Monk fruit and oral health: what the evidence shows
Monk fruit has surged in popularity as a zero-calorie sugar alternative, but what does it actually do inside your mouth? We pull apart the research on mogrosides, plaque pH telemetry, the oral microbiome, and the carrier ingredients that decide whether the final product is tooth-neutral or just sugar in disguise.
Monk fruit extract is non-cariogenic because its sweet compounds, the mogrosides, cannot be fermented by oral bacteria into acid. The whole extract is roughly 150 to 250 times sweeter than sugar, contributes zero calories in normal use, and an in-vitro plaque pH study in 36 children (Nagsuwanchart, Pediatric Dental Journal 2021) found no significant pH drop after a mogroside challenge in either caries-active or caries-free groups. The catch: commercial monk fruit products almost always blend the extract with erythritol, dextrose, or maltodextrin, and those carriers behave very differently in the mouth. Mogrosides also show measurable antioxidant activity and broad antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus mutans in lab work, but no published clinical anti-caries trial. Read the ingredient panel, favour pure or erythritol-blended monk fruit, and pair the swap with a remineralising routine.
Right fit: readers who already lean into clean sweeteners and want a tooth-neutral pick that survives a label audit. Wrong fit: anyone hoping a sweetener alone will reverse demineralised enamel or replace a remineralising paste.
- Key terms glossary
- What is monk fruit, exactly?
- Does monk fruit feed cavity bacteria?
- What does plaque pH telemetry show?
- Mogrosides, antioxidants, and the oral microbiome
- Why the carrier ingredient changes everything
- Monk fruit vs xylitol vs erythritol vs stevia
- How regulators see monk fruit (US vs EU)
- Five myths about monk fruit and your teeth
- Where monk fruit fits in a real oral-care routine
- FAQ
Key terms you will see in this guide
A small green gourd native to the karst hills of Guangxi province in southern China, scientifically Siraitia grosvenorii, whose extract is sold as a high-intensity natural sweetener roughly 150 to 250 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar).
Triterpene glycosides, a family of plant compounds, that give monk fruit its sweetness. Mogroside V is the most abundant. The molecules are resistant to fermentation by oral bacteria and so non-cariogenic.
A sweetener that does not feed acid-producing bacteria and therefore does not directly contribute to cavity formation. The bar is passive (no harm), not active (no repair).
The bulking agent blended with high-intensity sweeteners (commonly erythritol, dextrose, or maltodextrin) to give them a sugar-like volume, weight, and pour. In any retail monk fruit pack the carrier makes up most of the powder.
A research technique that measures real-time pH changes in dental plaque after exposure to a food or sweetener, using either intra-oral microelectrodes or an in-vitro plaque-suspension model.
The plaque pH below which enamel begins to dissolve, traditionally cited around 5.5 for sound enamel. Below this number, calcium and phosphate leach out of the tooth surface.
A measure of how quickly a carbohydrate raises blood glucose. Monk fruit extract scores zero because mogrosides are not absorbed by the small intestine in any meaningful quantity.
A synthetic version of the calcium phosphate that makes up enamel, used in modern remineralising toothpastes and gums alongside or instead of fluoride.
What is monk fruit, exactly?
Monk fruit (Luo Han Guo, Siraitia grosvenorii) is a small green gourd from the karst hills of Guangxi province in southern China. The dried fruit has been used in traditional Chinese practice for at least eight centuries, mostly as a cough and throat remedy. The modern oral-health story is not about the fruit, though. It is about one class of compounds inside it: mogrosides.
Mogrosides are triterpene glycosides, a family of plant compounds where one or more sugar groups sit on a non-sugar backbone called an aglycone. In Siraitia grosvenorii the aglycone is a cucurbitane-type triterpene, and the sweet ones carry a cluster of glucose units. The most abundant sweet mogroside is mogroside V, which makes up roughly 0.5 to 1 percent of the fresh fruit and a much larger fraction of the purified extract. The review by Gong and colleagues (Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2019) catalogues more than 30 mogroside variants in the fruit, with mogrosides IV, V, and VI doing most of the sweetening work.
The crucial point for your teeth is how those molecules are built. The cucurbitane backbone is what your tongue reads as sweet, but the molecule is structurally unlike anything Streptococcus mutans evolved to eat. Plaque bacteria are tuned for short, fermentable sugars and disaccharides, sucrose being the headline example. Triterpene glycosides do not fit that template, and the sugar groups attached to the backbone are not arranged in a way the relevant bacterial enzymes can crack open. The mogroside passes through the mouth, down the throat, and through the small intestine largely intact.
How sweet is it, in numbers?
FDA-cited measurements put purified mogroside extracts at 100 to 400 times the sweetness of sucrose depending on the mogroside V content, with most commercial extracts landing in the 150 to 250 range. That intensity is why almost every monk fruit product on the shelf is cut with something cheaper and bulkier: a teaspoon of pure extract would over-sweeten a pot of coffee for everyone in the room. The carrier ingredient is the bit that quietly decides whether the final product is good or bad for your teeth, and we will come back to it in section six.
Does monk fruit feed cavity bacteria?
Cavities (clinical name: dental caries) form when fermentable carbohydrates feed acid-producing plaque bacteria, primarily Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli, and the local pH at the enamel surface drops below the demineralisation threshold of roughly 5.5. Sucrose, glucose, fructose, lactose, and maltose all fit that profile. They are short, fermentable, and energetically cheap for the bacterium to metabolise. Within minutes of arrival, plaque bacteria run them through glycolysis and dump out lactate, formate, and acetate as waste, dragging the local pH straight down.
Mogrosides do not fit that profile. Their triterpene backbone is structurally outside the substrates Streptococcus mutans evolved to process, the sugar groups are arranged in a configuration the relevant bacterial glycosidases do not readily cleave, and the molecule is large enough that diffusion into the bacterial cell is slow. The acid attack never starts. This is the technical meaning of non-cariogenic: not "good for teeth" in the active sense, but "does not directly contribute to cavity formation."
There is a small but interesting wrinkle. The review by Gong and colleagues (Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2019) notes that crude leaf, fruit, and stem extracts of Siraitia grosvenorii show measurable inhibitory activity against Streptococcus mutans in lab conditions, alongside activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli. The compounds responsible are not all clearly identified, and the work is in-vitro rather than clinical, but it suggests that monk fruit may be doing more than passively passing through. Crucially, no one has run a finished-product clinical trial showing that a monk fruit sweetener actually lowers caries risk in humans, so the honest framing today is "non-cariogenic with hints of mild antibacterial activity in the lab."
Monk fruit will not give you cavities. It also will not prevent them. It is a clean swap for sugar in the same way clean is the absence of dirt, not the presence of medicine. The active-protection job belongs to a different toolkit.
What does plaque pH telemetry show?
Plaque pH telemetry is the cleanest available read on whether something behaves like sugar in the mouth. Researchers either fit a tiny electrode under live plaque on a volunteer's tooth or take a plaque suspension from a donor and challenge it with the test substance in vitro, then watch the pH curve in real time. Sucrose drops plaque pH from around 7.0 to below 5.5 within five minutes in healthy volunteers, well past the demineralisation threshold for enamel, and the curve recovers slowly over the next 20 to 40 minutes.
The clearest direct test of monk fruit on plaque pH is the in-vitro study by Nagsuwanchart and colleagues (Pediatric Dental Journal, 2021). They took plaque from 36 children, mean age 6.2 years, split between caries-active and caries-free groups, and challenged it with six solutions: mogroside, palatinose, erythritol, xylitol, 10 percent sucrose, and deionised water as a negative control. They measured pH at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 minutes. Sucrose and palatinose dropped pH significantly. Mogroside, erythritol, xylitol, and water did not.
Why the flat line matters
That flat line is the entire case for monk fruit being tooth-neutral. There is no buffering effect, no calcium donation, no remineralisation step. The pH just refuses to fall. For a sweetener, that is enough. It is also the same pattern erythritol and xylitol show in the same study, which is why all three end up in the same conversation. They share a defensive profile: no cariogenic attack, no active repair.
One caveat worth flagging. Nagsuwanchart tested mogroside as the sweet compound in solution. Real-world consumers eat monk fruit blends, not isolated mogroside. The plaque-pH read on a commercial monk fruit baking blend with maltodextrin in position one will look very different from this clean curve, and that is the point we are about to land on in section six.
Mogrosides, antioxidants, and the oral microbiome
Beyond the basic non-cariogenic story, the lab literature on Siraitia grosvenorii points to two additional properties worth flagging: antioxidant activity and broad antimicrobial activity. Neither has been confirmed in a clinical oral-care trial, but both are mechanistically plausible enough that they reshape the framing.
Antioxidant activity (the lab evidence)
Liu and colleagues (Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2018) measured mogroside extract's free-radical scavenging activity using ORAC, DPPH, and ABTS assays. The extract scored strongly on ORAC (851.8 micromoles Trolox equivalent per gram), with moderate DPPH and ABTS performance. Earlier work on individual mogrosides found that 11-oxo-mogroside V was a notably stronger scavenger of superoxide anions and hydrogen peroxide than mogroside V itself. Free-radical activity in dental plaque is part of the broader inflammation story in periodontal disease, so antioxidants that survive the mouth are mechanistically interesting, even if no one has measured a clinical gum-health endpoint with mogrosides yet.
Antimicrobial activity against oral pathogens
As noted above, the Gong review (Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2019) reports that crude Siraitia grosvenorii extracts inhibit Streptococcus mutans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli in lab conditions. The compounds responsible were not isolated in that review, and the magnitude of the effect is modest. There is no in-vivo or clinical follow-up that turns this in-vitro signal into a real-world claim. The reasonable read: monk fruit is unlikely to harm the oral microbiome at culinary doses, may modestly nudge it in a favourable direction, and is not a substitute for any of the proven anti-plaque agents (xylitol, erythritol, chlorhexidine, fluoride, nano-hydroxyapatite).
What about the gut microbiome read-across?
Work by Chen and colleagues on gut microbiota in an in-vitro incubation system (Nutrients, 2021) found that mogroside V modulated bacterial composition and short-chain fatty acid synthesis without favouring the typical opportunistic pathogens. That is a different anatomical compartment from the mouth, but it strengthens the broader picture: mogrosides do not feed problem bacteria the way sucrose does. Nothing here justifies a remineralising or anti-caries claim. It does justify the modest framing: monk fruit looks gentle on bacterial communities by the metrics tested so far.
Why the carrier ingredient changes everything
Pick up a monk fruit pack at the supermarket and turn it over. The first ingredient is almost never monk fruit. The first ingredient is the carrier: the bulking agent that gives the powder a sugar-like volume so you can scoop it into a coffee or bake with it. The mogrosides are tucked at the end of the panel at a fraction of a percent. The whole oral-health calculation hinges on that carrier, not on the headline word on the front of the bag.
Erythritol. A sugar alcohol that is itself non-cariogenic. The Estonian 3-year trial in 485 schoolchildren (Honkala and colleagues, Caries Research, 2014) found erythritol candy delivered the lowest caries development, beating xylitol and sorbitol. It is the cleanest pairing for a monk fruit blend, and the easiest to spot on the front of the panel.
Allulose, isomalt, or pure mogroside extract. Less common but acceptable. Allulose is metabolised differently from glucose and does not drive plaque acidogenesis. Pure mogroside extract is rare and pricey but the gold standard if you can find it.
If the panel lists dextrose, maltodextrin, glucose, sucrose, or "natural cane sugar" anywhere on the front of the ingredients list, the product is closer to sugar than to a clean monk fruit sweetener in the mouth. Those carriers ferment normally, drop plaque pH normally, and undo the entire reason you reached for monk fruit in the first place. Maltodextrin is the sneakiest of the four because consumers read it as a neutral processing aid, but its glycaemic index is higher than sucrose's and Streptococcus mutans handles it without effort.
How to do a 10-second label audit
Flip the pack, look at the ingredient list, and read in order. If the first ingredient is erythritol, allulose, or "monk fruit extract" itself, you have a clean pack. If the first ingredient is dextrose, maltodextrin, sugar, glucose, or a fruit-juice concentrate, walk away and pick a different brand. The "0 calories" or "natural" claim on the front of the bag is not enough information to make the call. A serving size that yields zero calories often only does so because the carrier was crammed into a sub-five-gram portion. Read the back, every time.
Monk fruit vs xylitol vs erythritol vs stevia
Four sweeteners share a non-cariogenic profile and dominate the clean-label conversation: monk fruit, xylitol, erythritol, and stevia. They are not interchangeable on oral health. Each has a slightly different evidence base, and the right pick depends on whether you want a passive swap or active protection.
Xylitol: the protection benchmark
Xylitol (a sugar substitute that bacteria cannot metabolise) has the deepest body of clinical evidence on active caries protection. The 2015 Cochrane review by Riley and colleagues pooled 10 trials and concluded that a fluoride toothpaste containing 10 percent xylitol may reduce caries by around 13 percent over 2.5 to 3 years compared with fluoride toothpaste alone, with the caveat that the evidence quality was low and most data came from one research group. Earlier consensus literature suggested a sustained habit of 5 to 10 grams a day, split across multiple exposures, is associated with lower mutans streptococci counts. Whether that lowers caries in a real population at scale is still contested, which is partly what the Cochrane review captured. The honest read: xylitol is the best-evidenced anti-caries sweetener available, but the effect size is modest and depends on consistent use.
Erythritol: the dark-horse winner in head-to-heads
Erythritol has had a quieter rise, but the Estonian 3-year trial by Honkala, Runnel, Saag, Falony, and colleagues (Caries Research, 2014) found that erythritol candy outperformed both xylitol and sorbitol on dental and clinical caries endpoints in 485 primary school children. The erythritol group had the lowest prevalence of caries-related mutans streptococci and the lowest clinical caries experience. That makes erythritol the only widely available sweetener to beat xylitol in a head-to-head children's trial, and it is the carrier we would actively want to see paired with monk fruit on a label.
Stevia: the parallel "no acid drop" story
Stevia's sweet compounds, the steviol glycosides, mirror mogrosides on the basic plaque-pH read: not fermented by oral bacteria, no measurable acid drop. Some in-vitro work suggests stevia extracts have mild antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans, but the strength of evidence is similar to monk fruit: real, but preliminary. Neither has remineralising activity. We covered the wider sweetener landscape in sugar substitutes ranked for teeth and the head-to-head between xylitol and erythritol in erythritol vs xylitol for oral health.
How regulators see monk fruit (US vs EU)
The regulatory split is the most quoted bit of monk fruit trivia, and worth getting right because it shapes which products end up on a European shelf in the first place.
United States: GRAS, multiple times over
The FDA has not objected to multiple Generally Recognised As Safe notifications for Siraitia grosvenorii Swingle (Luo Han Guo) fruit extract as a non-nutritive sweetener, starting with GRN 301 in 2010 and continuing through GRN 359, 522, 556, 627, and 629. The covered extracts range from 30 percent to 90 percent mogroside V content, and are cleared for use as a tabletop sweetener and a general-purpose non-nutritive sweetener. The FDA's posture is essentially "no questions" rather than a formal approval, but for practical purposes monk fruit has been a green-light ingredient in the US for over a decade.
European Union: no go yet
The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings, led by Younes and colleagues, concluded in their 2019 opinion that the toxicological dataset on monk fruit extract was insufficient to conclude on its safety as an EU food additive. The opinion flagged gaps in genotoxicity data on microbial metabolites, unresolved testicular effects in rodent studies, and the absence of chronic and carcinogenicity testing. EFSA explicitly rejected the argument that historical consumption in China and Japan was enough to skip the missing studies. The practical consequence: monk fruit extract is not an approved EU food additive, so it cannot be sold as a tabletop sweetener inside the EU, though it appears in some products under different regulatory pathways (such as a fruit-juice concentrate or a botanical preparation).
The split does not change the oral-health calculation. Mogrosides are still non-cariogenic. It does mean that European consumers see monk fruit far less often on supermarket shelves than American ones, and that "monk fruit blend" products imported into the EU need a careful read of the regulatory pathway as well as the carrier.
Five myths about monk fruit and your teeth
The wellness internet has built a small mythology around monk fruit, mostly by mixing real properties with claims it cannot back. The five most common slips:
No. Mogrosides do not donate calcium or phosphate to the enamel surface. The remineralising job belongs to ingredients like nano-hydroxyapatite, casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, and fluoride. Monk fruit is defensive, not restorative.
Not automatically. A monk fruit blend cut with maltodextrin can be labelled zero-calorie per serving (because the serving size is engineered down to under 5 grams) while still feeding plaque bacteria normally. Calories on the front of the pack are a nutrition metric, not a cariogenicity metric.
No. A monk fruit sweetener is a sucrose-replacement tool. Xylitol in a chewing gum is an active oral-care intervention with a Cochrane-reviewed evidence base. The two solve different problems. If you want anti-caries claims, you want xylitol and erythritol in the gum.
The plaque-pH part of the answer is largely yes for pure mogrosides, but the dose, the carrier, and the kid's broader diet still matter. A juice cup sweetened with a monk fruit-maltodextrin blend will feed plaque bacteria the same way a juice cup sweetened with sugar would.
No. The FDA's GRAS pathway has cleared it for the US since 2010. EFSA explicitly did not in 2019, citing toxicology gaps. EU consumers see it less often on shelves, and the products that do appear take a different regulatory route.
Where monk fruit fits in a real oral-care routine
A sweetener swap is a defensive move. It removes one source of acid attack from the routine. Active protection of the enamel surface, the side of the equation that actually rebuilds, comes from elsewhere. The ingredient with the strongest clinical evidence base for remineralisation (the process where minerals are restored to enamel) is nano-hydroxyapatite, the synthetic form of the calcium phosphate that enamel is built from. Delivered through a paste, a gel, or a remineralising chewing gum, it pulls calcium and phosphate back into demineralised zones.
The clean routine, step by step
The clean routine reads like this. First, cut fermentable sugars where you can: this is the monk fruit job, but only if the carrier on the back of the pack is right. Second, brush twice a day with a remineralising toothpaste, ideally one built around nano-hydroxyapatite or a fluoride-and-calcium combination. Third, use a tooth-neutral chewing gum on the snacks and coffees where brushing is not realistic: this is where xylitol or a remineralising gum earns its keep. Fourth, floss daily, because no sweetener decision matters if interproximal plaque is left to mature into a mature biofilm.
The Minvelle remineralising gum sits in that third slot, with nano-hydroxyapatite, xylitol, and Chios mastic resin in the formula and no fermentable sugar of any kind. Monk fruit is not in the formula, which is the point: monk fruit is a great kitchen sweetener for the moments when you would otherwise reach for sugar, and a tooth-neutral chewing gum is a different category of product solving a different problem.
Who should reach for a monk fruit blend?
A pure or erythritol-blended monk fruit pack swaps one sugar exposure per use without dropping plaque pH. Over a year that is a meaningful reduction in the number of acid attacks your enamel weathers.
If you check carriers, monk fruit is one of the cleaner sweeteners on the shelf. If you grab the first bag with "monk fruit" on the front, the carrier may quietly undo the swap. Brand-front messaging is not enough.
Pure mogrosides do not raise blood glucose. If glycaemic control is the goal, monk fruit pairs better with an erythritol carrier than with a maltodextrin one, since maltodextrin has a glycaemic index even higher than sucrose's.
Who should look elsewhere?
Monk fruit will not lower your caries risk or rebuild enamel. For active protection inside an oral-care routine, look at xylitol gum and a nano-hydroxyapatite paste or a remineralising gum.
If you will not check the carrier panel, a "monk fruit" labelled product with a dextrose or maltodextrin base behaves like sugar. The label win is undone in the mouth. If a label audit is not your thing, default to a single-ingredient pack of erythritol or xylitol instead.
This article is informational. It is not medical advice. Talk to your dentist before changing your oral-care routine, especially if you have active caries, sensitivity beyond mild, or systemic conditions affecting oral health. Claims relating to nano-hydroxyapatite, xylitol, erythritol, mogrosides, and mastic resin are based on ingredient-level research, not clinical trials of any specific finished product. Regulatory status of monk fruit varies by jurisdiction.
Reads dental research daily. Not a medical professional. Every Minvelle post is fact-checked against primary sources. Read the full story here.
Frequently asked questions
Is monk fruit bad for your teeth?
Pure monk fruit extract is not bad for your teeth. The sweet compounds, called mogrosides, are triterpene glycosides that oral bacteria cannot ferment into acid. The 2021 Nagsuwanchart in-vitro study on dental plaque from caries-active and caries-free children measured no significant pH drop after a mogroside challenge, unlike sucrose, which drove pH below the demineralisation threshold within five minutes. The cavity risk in any commercial monk fruit product sits in the carrier ingredient, not in the mogrosides.
Does monk fruit cause cavities?
Monk fruit on its own does not cause cavities. Cavities form when fermentable carbohydrates feed acid-producing plaque bacteria and the local pH at the enamel surface falls below roughly 5.5. Mogrosides are not fermentable by Streptococcus mutans or lactobacilli, so plaque pH studies show no measurable acid attack after exposure to pure monk fruit extract. The risk lives in the bulking agent on the label, and only if it is dextrose, maltodextrin, or another fermentable carbohydrate.
Is monk fruit better than xylitol for teeth?
They do different jobs. Both are non-cariogenic and skip the plaque acid attack. Xylitol has a much larger evidence base for active protection: the 2015 Cochrane review on xylitol found low-quality evidence that a 10 percent xylitol fluoride toothpaste may reduce caries by around 13 percent over 2.5 to 3 years compared with fluoride alone. Long-term cohort work in Estonia found erythritol candy outperformed both xylitol and sorbitol on caries development in children. Monk fruit has no comparable clinical anti-caries trial. For a sweetener that is tooth-neutral, monk fruit is fine. For active oral-care delivery, xylitol and erythritol have the better evidence base.
What carrier ingredient should I look for in a monk fruit product?
Erythritol is the cleanest pairing for oral health. It is a sugar alcohol that is non-cariogenic on its own, sits at zero on the glycaemic index, and showed lower caries incidence than xylitol and sorbitol in a 3-year randomised trial in 485 Estonian children. Avoid blends that list dextrose, maltodextrin, glucose, or sucrose anywhere on the panel: those carriers ferment normally and re-introduce the acid attack the monk fruit was supposed to avoid.
Can a monk fruit sweetener remineralise enamel?
No. Mogrosides have no remineralisation mechanism. They neither donate calcium nor phosphate to the enamel surface, and they do not raise plaque pH the way a buffering agent would. Monk fruit is best understood as a sweetener that does not damage enamel, not as a sweetener that repairs it. For active repair, the ingredient with the strongest evidence base is nano-hydroxyapatite delivered through a paste, gel, or remineralising chewing gum.
Is monk fruit safe for kids' teeth?
From an oral-health point of view, pure monk fruit is a safer sweetener than sugar for kids because it does not feed plaque bacteria. The Nagsuwanchart group tested mogroside in a paediatric plaque model and reported no significant pH drop in either caries-active or caries-free children. The usual caveats apply: read the carrier ingredient on the back of the pack, and remember that a non-cariogenic sweetener does not replace brushing, flossing, and a remineralising routine. Talk to a paediatric dentist before changing a child's routine, especially if active caries are present.
What is the difference between monk fruit and stevia for oral health?
Both are high-intensity natural sweeteners whose sweet compounds are not fermented by oral bacteria. Stevia's steviol glycosides and monk fruit's mogrosides both pass the plaque pH test as non-cariogenic. Some in-vitro work suggests stevia extracts have mild antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans, but the evidence is preliminary. Neither has remineralising activity. The deciding factor in real products is usually the carrier on the label, not the sweet compound.
Is monk fruit approved in the EU?
Not as a stand-alone food additive. The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings concluded in 2019 that the toxicological dataset on monk fruit extract was insufficient to support its safety as an EU food additive, citing gaps in genotoxicity, chronic toxicity, and metabolite data. In the United States the FDA has not objected to several GRAS notifications for monk fruit extract as a non-nutritive sweetener (GRN 301, 359, 522, 556, 627, 629). So monk fruit products are widely available in the US, while EU labelling treats it more cautiously.
- Nagsuwanchart P, Nakornchai S, Thaweboon S, Surarit R. Mogroside, palatinose, erythritol, and xylitol differentially affect dental plaque pH in caries-active and caries-free children: An in vitro study. Pediatric Dental Journal, 2021;31(3):242-247.
- Gong X, Chen N, Ren K, et al. The Fruits of Siraitia grosvenorii: A Review of a Chinese Food-Medicine. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2019;10:1400.
- Liu H, Wang C, Qi X, Zou J, Sun Z. Antiglycation and antioxidant activities of mogroside extract from Siraitia grosvenorii (Swingle) fruits. PubMed PMC5897311, J Food Sci Technol, 2018.
- Riley P, Moore D, Sharif MO, Ahmed F, Worthington HV. Xylitol-containing products for preventing dental caries in children and adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015;3:CD010743.
- Honkala S, Runnel R, Saag M, Olak J, Nõmmela R, Russak S, Mäkinen KK, Vahlberg T, Falony G, et al. Effect of erythritol and xylitol on dental caries prevention in children. Caries Research, 2014;48(5):482-490.
- Younes M, et al. (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings). Safety of use of Monk fruit extract as a food additive in different food categories. EFSA Journal, 2019. PMC7008860.
- US FDA. GRAS Notifications for Siraitia grosvenorii Swingle (Luo Han Guo) fruit extract. FDA GRAS Inventory, GRN 301, 359, 522, 556, 627, 629.
- Reviews of nano-hydroxyapatite for enamel remineralisation: PubMed: nano-hydroxyapatite and enamel remineralisation.
A clean sweetener is a defence. Remineralisation is the repair.
Use code ENAMEL10 at checkout. 30-day money-back guarantee. No commitment on the first order.
Try Minvelle →