Association between Smokeless Tobacco Use and Risk of Periodontitis in Asian Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individual studies conducted in Asian countries have reported higher risk of periodontitis among smokeless tobacco (SLT) users in comparison to non-users. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to summarize the available evidence on this topic. METHODS: Prominent electronic databases were searched using pre-decided MeSH terms and keywords. Screening of titles and abstracts, full text reading, quality assessment and data extraction was done by two investigators independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for risk of bias assessment of eligible studies. Meta-analysis was performed for four periodontal outcomes (periodontal pocket depth, loss of attachment, clinical attachment level and gingival recession). A sensitivity analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 546 citations, 367 were screened for eligibility. Finally, 89 studies were shortlisted for full text reading, of which, 36 were found eligible for qualitative analysis. Most of the studies were conducted in India (n=22), were of cross-sectional design (n=33), utilized purposive sampling and 24 studies were included for meta-analysis (n=28) and done on hospital-based population (n=26). Only 13 (37.1%) studies achieved a score of more than 50% (5/10 stars) on quality assessment scale. SLT users had higher odds of greater periodontal pocket depth greater than 4 mm (OR=3.64), gingival recession (OR=1.71) and loss of attachment 4-5 mm (OR=2.83) and mean difference of 1.7 mm for Clinical Attachment Level compared to non-users. CONCLUSION: The studies included in this review suggests that SLT users have poorer periodontal health in comparison to non-users. But most of this evidence comes from cross-sectional studies. Longitudinal studies with rigorous methodology are required to support this elucidation. Registration: This systematic review protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019122964).
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".