The Effect of Finishing and Polishing with Proprietary Vs Interchanged Polishing Kits on the Surface Roughness of Different Ceramic Materials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the surface roughness of glazed and polished monolithic ceramic materials and to use this as a baseline for comparison after adjustment and polishing with both the recommended kit for the specific materials as well as interchanged polishing kits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Flat ceramic specimens (n = 150) were fabricated from IPS ZirCAD Prime, IPS E.max, and Vitabloc Mark II. The specimens were adjusted and polished using either the proprietary polishing kit for the material or interchanged kits. The surface roughness was objectively assessed using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and profilometer. Subjective assessment of surface finish was performed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Gravimetric weight loss of each sample was measured before and after polishing using a digital microscale. The mean surface roughness and standard deviation was calculated for each ceramic- polisher pair. A factorial ANOVA was used to compare the mean surface roughness values in nanometers between multiple groups (α = 0.05). The subjective results from the SEM were reported as descriptive statistics RESULTS: The zirconia polishing system produced surfaces with the lowest surface roughness regardless of the ceramic material. The polisher-ceramic combination was found to have a statistically significant effect on both Ra and RMS values when the AFM was used (p = 0.039 and 0.010, respectively). CONCLUSION: The zirconia polishing system resulted in the lowest surface roughness values regardless of ceramic materials tested. The zirconia polishing system also did not result in significant gravimetric weight loss regardless of the ceramic material used.

A comparison of the caries risk between patients who use vapes or electronic cigarettes and those who do not: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the potential oral health effects of vaping is scarce and there are limited data on possible links to both caries and periodontal disease. The authors assessed the association between electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) or vape use and caries risk level. The Caries Management by Risk Assessment tool was used. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of patient records was conducted; 13,098 patients who attended the dental school clinics from January 1, 2019, through January 1, 2022, were included in the study. Mann-Whitney U test and multivariable ordinal logistic regression were used to assess the relationship between use of e-cigarettes or vapes and caries risk level. RESULTS: Data from 13,216 patients were included in the data set initially; 13,080 responded "no" when asked whether they used e-cigarettes or vapes (99.3%), and 136 responded "yes" (0.69%). There was a statistically significant difference (P < .001) in caries risk levels between the e-cigarette or vape group and the control group; 14.5%, 25.9%, and 59.6% of the control group were in the low, moderate, and high caries risk categories, respectively, and 6.6%, 14.3%, and 79.1% of the e-cigarette or vape group were in the low, moderate, and high caries risk categories, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, there was an association between use of e-cigarettes or vapes and caries risk level of patients; vaping patients had a higher risk of developing caries. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Within the study limitations, it was recommended that use of e-cigarettes or vapes should not only be included in the routine dental-medical history questionnaire, but also among the risk factors that increase a patient's caries risk level.

Potential oral health effects of e-cigarettes and vaping: A review and case reports.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, the potential oral health consequences of vaping are described. While most dentists are likely aware of the potential serious health effects involved with vaping, the aim of this article was to raise awareness on identified oral health consequences. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Three patients presented to one dental practice with unusual patterns of dental caries, and all three admitted to regular vaping. Vaping components include propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavors, which contain sucrose, sucralose, and ethyl maltol. The vapor produced by vaping devices is thick and viscous and much of it is retained on oral tissues. There are over 10 000 different vaping liquids, including some that contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and vitamin E acetate. Vaping clearly has the potential to negatively affect general health, periodontal health, and accelerate the development of caries. There is also evidence that teenagers are being attracted to vaping in astonishing numbers. CONCLUSIONS: The general health consequences of vaping have received considerable attention in the national media. There is much to be learned about the consequences of this behavior. There are also potential serious oral health consequences to vaping. It is likely that the composition of certain vaping solutions may make them more harmful than others CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: It is important that dental professionals are made aware of the potential problems related to vaping. Initial reports show that the effect of e-cigarettes on periodontal tissues is similar to that of conventional cigarettes. Some vaping formulations may be highly cariogenic, especially those with sweet flavors, which are used to attract young people. Patients should be routinely questioned about their vaping habits in the medical-dental history.