European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Abstracts

Cover Date

June 2015

Print ISSN

0965-7452

Vol

23

Issue

2

Abstract

Schottlander Oral presentation abstracts:

Electronic Cigarettes and Prosthodontics: an update of the current literature, an audit of reporting and staff knowledge and analysis of the erosive potential of e-liquids
R Holliday*, G Bourne, C Stubbs , M Corson (Newcastle Dental Hospital) Email: [email protected]
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are devices that deliver a vapour containing nicotine, flavourings and diluents. Since their introduction in 2006 they have seen a significant rise in popularity with an estimated 2.1 million users in the United Kingdom. The aims of this study were twofold: firstly to determine if ecigarette usage was being recorded in the medical records and to determine staff/student knowledge, and secondly selected e-liquids were analysed for their erosive potential. Round 1: 464 patients each completed a questionnaire prior to their clinical visit. Their medical records were later examined for evidence of e-cigarette reporting. 50 staff and 50 students were asked a series of simple questions to determine their knowledge. Intervention: Staff lunchtime talks and undergraduate lectures delivered. Round 2: 150 patients and 20 staff/ 20 students. Approximately 5% of the patients sampled were using an ecigarette in both rounds. Recording rates were 28% in the first round and improved to 50% in the second round. Staff knowledge was mixed in both rounds. E-cigarette usage is poorly recorded in the medical records. Staff and students knowledge is mixed. E-liquid analysis measured the pH and titratable acidity of a range of nicotine containing solutions (e-liquids) manufactured for electronic cigarettes. The average pH of the e-liquids was pH 7.43, with a range from pH 4.42 to pH 8.86. Four e-liquids had a pH<7. The ‘e-liquid with the largest buffering capacity required 217µl of 0.1M NaOH to reach pH 5.5 and an additional 600µl to reach pH 7. The majority of the e-liquids tested were neutral or slightly alkaline. We identified four acidic e-liquid solutions, all being custom mixtures ordered off the internet, from the same manufacturer. The buffering capacity of the acidic e-liquids, to get to the critical pH of 5.5, was relatively small, approximately a tenth that of orange juice. The clinical relevance of these results needs to be investigated further.

EJPRD

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

P97