ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2023
Do electronic cigarette devices/vapes impact the colour of dental ceramics?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
designIn vitro primary research study. CASE SELECTION AND
methodFive frequently used restorative dental ceramic materials (pressable ceramics (PEmax), pressed and layered ceramics (LEmax), layered zirconia (LZr), monolithic zirconia (MZr) and porcelain fused to metal (PFM)) were selected and manufactured in shade A1. Samples of each material were prepared in discs and kept in water at 37°C for 24 hours then aged via thermocycling. Samples were positioned in a plastic chamber to mimic the intraoral setting and exposed to vape smoke through an artificial lung vacuum system. The procedure was repeated until target exposure puffs were achieved, ranging from 250-1500 puffs. The ECDs/vape device, refill juice and concentration used for puff generation were chosen based on a survey reporting high consumption. A spectrophotometer was used to measure sample colour through L*a*b values (lightness, axes of green, red, blue and yellow). CIELAB formula was used to calculate total colour difference (∆E) at six time intervals. DATA ANALYSIS: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's posthoc testing was used to compare mean ∆E values with 95% confidence intervals for all specimens. Cut off for significance was α < 0.05.
resultsAll ceramics showed colour variation following exposure to ECD aerosol. With the exception of PEmax, all tested materials lightness values changed following exposure to 250 puffs. At 1500 puff exposures, LEmax, LZr and MZr showed significant colour changes, whereas PEmax and PFM showed clinically acceptable and insignificant change.
conclusionsColour change of dental ceramics varies depending on the ceramic material used and puff exposure number. Exposure to ECD aerosols can result in aesthetically noticeable colour changes in LEmax, LZr and MZr. Colour changes demonstrated are less than those caused by traditional tobacco smoking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.