Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Periodontal Status between Hookah and Cigarette Smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Inhalation of chemicals and toxins in cigarette and hookah smoke results in loss of integrity of oral cavity tissues. The objective of this study was to compare the periodontal health of hookah and cigarette smokers. Materials and Methods: In this study, 73 men at the age group of 20-35 years who smoked hookah for more than 5 years and 73 men at the same age who smoked cigarette for more than 5 years and 73 healthy men referred to the periodontal department of Mashhad dentistry school were selected and studied. Periodontal indices including pocket depth, GI, BOP, CAL were assessed in two groups. Also, using parallel periapical radiography, mesial and distal marginal bone level around the first molar tooth was measured. Finally, the data were assessed and compared using appropriate statistical analysis. Results: Pocket depth was 24.27% and 23.62%, respectively, in cigarette smokers and hookah smokers, and it was 0.96% in healthy subjects, clinical attachment level was 4.48 and 4.41 mm, respectively, in cigarette smokers and hookah smokers, and it was 0.77 mm in healthy subjects. Gingival index (GI) was 1.40 and 1.42, respectively, in cigarette smokers and hookah smokers and it was 0.52 in healthy subjects, BOP value was 6.52 and 6.52%, respectively, in cigarette smokers and hookah smokers and it was 10.86% in healthy subjects. Mesial marginal bone level of first lower molar tooth was 2.27 and 2.32 mm, respectively, in cigarette smokers and hookah smokers and it was 1.74 mm in healthy subjects and distal marginal bone level of lower first molar tooth was 2.38 and 2.35 mm, respectively, in cigarette smokers and hookah smokers and it was 1.75 mm in healthy subjects. Comparison of results between the two groups of cigarette smokers and hookah smokers did not show any significant relationship in any of the variables, but there was a significant relationship between the two groups and the healthy group (P <0.001). Conclusion: Periodontal parameters in healthy individuals are significantly better than those of smokers. Also, although there is a relationship between cigarette smoking and hookah smoking and periodontal parameters, these two groups do not show a significant difference in terms of periodontal parameters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".