ArticleBritish dental journal2021
Erosive potential of commonly available vapes: a cause for concern?
Article in British dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effects of electronic smoking on dental caries and proinflammatory markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- To Vape or Not to Vape: Oral Health in the Age of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Electronic Non-Nicotine Delivery Systems.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Article
- The Impact of E-Cigarettes on Oral Health-A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Oral health impacts of vaping.Australian prescriber · 2024Article
- Effects of Vape Use on Oral Health: A Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Is there evidence that e-cigarettes promote an increased risk of dental caries?Evidence-based dentistry · 2023Article
- The risk profile of electronic nicotine delivery systems, compared to traditional cigarettes, on oral disease: a review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives Relatively little is known about the erosive potential of vape products, an important consideration for dental health. This study analysed flavoured vapes with potentially low pH, including fruit and drink flavours.Methods The pH of 45 purposefully selected vapes was measured undiluted in triplicate. Serial dilution was conducted on the most erosive product to investigate if/when the erosive potential pH of 5.5 was reached. One of the most erosive samples was tested, undiluted and diluted, after four months of opening. Content analysis of the vape labels determined ingredients, place of manufacture, product usage instructions and health warnings.Results Eighty-four percent of undiluted vape samples had a pH below 5.5. Erosive potential was not predicted by the flavour, with orange and cola samples higher than anticipated (pH 3.56-6.23 and 5.04-5.63, respectively). Products that were predicted to be non-acidic such as vanilla showed considerable variation ranging from pH 4.69-5.63. Freshly opened or stored samples did not reach a non-erosive potential pH of 5.5 or above, even when diluted to represent concentrations used when vaped. Labels were not detailed enough to ascertain which ingredients were contributing to acidity or buffering capacity or to allow consumers to identify the least harmful products in terms of oral health.Conclusions Present labelling of commercially available vapes does not allow consumers to ascertain the erosive potential and possible dental damage that may be inflicted by their use. More effective labelling and/or health warnings are required to educate consumers and dental health professionals on these products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34686816What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.