Influence of Smoking on the Color Stability and Longevity of Restored Discolored Teeth with Dental Crowns: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Smoking is a well-established risk factor affecting oral health, yet its specific influence on the color stability and longevity of dental crowns restoring discolored teeth remains under- investigated. This systematic review explores how various smoking modalities, including conventional cigarettes and electronic alternatives, impact restorative materials. Objective: To evaluate the influence of smoking on the color stability and longevity of dental crowns used in the restoration of discolored teeth. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar up to [6/1/2025]. Studies involving human participants or in vitro models that assessed the impact of smoking on dental crowns in terms of color change (ΔE) or longevity were included. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity. Quality assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising primarily in vitro experiments with some observational data. Conventional cigarette smoke (CS) consistently caused clinically unacceptable discoloration (ΔE>3.3) in most tested materials, particularly resin composites. Ceramic materials, such as lithium disilicate and zirconia, demonstrated greater resistance to staining. Harm-reduction products like electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs) induced less discoloration, although effects varied by material type and surface finish. Longevity outcomes were indirectly associated with material degradation, surface roughness and plaque retention, all of which were exacerbated by smoking. Conclusion: Smoking significantly compromises the aesthetic and structural integrity of dental crowns, especially those made of resin-based materials. While newer crown materials and harm-reduction smoking alternatives may mitigate discoloration, smoking cessation remains the most effective strategy for maintaining restoration longevity and color stability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".