No abstract

Objective: The use of electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) has recently increased as an alternative to conventional smoking tobacco products. The literature is scarce on the effects of ECIGs on dental and oral structures. Therefore, the objective of this study was to observe whether ECIG aerosol could alter the color of dental enamel.Materials and methods: Sixty-three bovine enamel specimens were randomly separated into groups (n = 7) and treated with aerosols with different e-liquid flavors (neutral, menthol, and tobacco) and nicotine content (0, 12, and 18 mg). The initial color assessment was performed using a spectrophotometer (Easy Shade-Vita). Dental enamel was exposed to 20 cycles of ECIG aerosol in a smoking machine, and the final color was measured. The color change was evaluated using ΔEab, ΔE00, and Whiteness Index (WI D ) formulae. Differences in L* a* b* coordinates were calculated, and data were analyzed (two-way ANOVA, uncorrected Fisher's LSD post hoc test, α = 0.05). Results: Luminosity (ΔL) was reduced by aerosols with almost all levels of nicotine content and neutral and menthol flavors. Flavored e-liquids caused more color change (P < .05) according to ΔEab and ΔE00. ΔE values from both formulae exceeded the thresholds for perceptible visual alterations of color. WI D increased after ECIGs exposure for menthol and tobacco and decreased for neutral flavors. Conclusions: ECIG aerosol from e-liquids with different nicotine contents and flavors altered enamel color. Menthol and tobacco e-liquids may alter the enamel color decreasing the yellowness of the enamel compared to neutral e-liquid.

Adhesive protocols may influence the success of resin composite restorations in CAD; this is important because failure can lead to caries, re-incidence, and/or clinical re-work.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to observe patients’ satisfaction with their in-service direct anterior dental restorations and to compare it with clinical evaluation using FDI (Federation Dental International) criteria. Patients scored their own anterior dental restorations regarding satisfaction (satisfactory /dissatisfactory). If dissatisfaction was mentioned, then, they would be interviewed about the complaint. In the same session, the dental restorations were clinically evaluated by two dentists using FDI criteria (1-5 score) concerning esthetic, functional, and biological domains. Descriptive statistics were used for frequencies of scores attributed by patients and clinicians. In order to compare patients’ to clinicians’ frequencies, the Chi-square test was applied (p ≤ 0.05). A total of 106 restorations were evaluated by patients and clinicians. Patients reported 52.8% of restorations satisfactory and 47.8% dissatisfactory. Overall, clinicians reported the same restorations as 82,3% satisfactory and 17,6% dissatisfactory. Patients’ most frequent complaints referred to color, followed by anatomical form, fracture of material and retention, and approximal anatomical form. Comparing patients’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates to clinicians’ evaluation per criteria, there was no difference regarding esthetics. The frequency of dissatisfactory restorations by clinicians was significantly lower when functional and biological properties were compared with patients’ opinions. Direct anterior dental restorations were more frequently reported as satisfactory by patients and clinicians, being the main complaints related to esthetic issues. When clinicians and patients’ evaluations were compared, it was observed that the frequencies of satisfactory restoration by patients and clinicians were similar regarding esthetic properties, and significantly different regarding functional and biological properties.