Table 3.

Results for different composite types and their response to various smoking conditions. It shows the mean ΔE values and the associated p-values. Overall, these findings indicate the impact of smoking on the color stability of different composite materials

AuthorsYear	Material used	Smoking type	Smoking exposure time	Mean ΔE	SD	p
Alnasser et al.15 2021	Nano-hybrid composite	Conventional	90 min	1.714	1.166	0.001
		Electronic		0.646	0.301	0.001
	Micro-hybrid composite	Conventional		0.8512	0.589	0.001
		Electronic		0.487	0.262	0.033
Zhao et al.10 2017	DVS	3R4F	20 C/day for 3 weeks	20.7	1.4	<0.0001
		THS2.2		3.3	0.9	<0.0001
	TEC	3R4F		26.2	2.7	<0.0001
		THS2.2		1.9	0.6	<0.0001
	FSU	3R4F		28.0	2.5	<0.0001
		THS2.2		2.6	0.5	<0.0001
Zanetti et al.16 2019	Enamel	3R4F	20 C/day, 4 days a week for three weeks	7.1	2.3	<0.0001
		THS2.2		2.0	1.0	<0.0001
	Dentin	3R4F		18.2	3.9	<0.0001
		THS2.2		2.4	0.7	<0.0001
	Composite resin	3R4F		25.6	3.8	<0.0001
		THS2.2		3.0	1.0	<0.0001
Vohra et al.17 2020	Dental ceramic	CS	10 puffs per cycle, 10 cycles/day for 7 days	2.422	0.771	<0.001
		ENDS		2.396	0.596	<0.001
		NS		0.291	0.23	Not significant
	Dental composite	CS		42.871	2.448	<0.001
		ENDS		46.866	3.641	<0.001
		NS		0.558	0.329	Not significant

THS: tobacco heating system. DVS: Durafill VS. TEC: Terrie EvoCeram BulkFill. FSU: Filtek Supreme Ultra. CS: cigarette smoke. ENDS: e-cigarette smoke. NS: no smoke. C: cigarettes.