Effects of Electronic Cigarettes on Periodontal Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The use of electronic cigarettes "e-cigarettes," or vaping is growing in popularity, especially among adolescents and young adults. While the effects of cigarette smoking on oral health are well-established, the exact impact that e-cigarettes may have on dental tissues is still uncertain. The aim of the current review was to summarize evidence related to the effect of vaping on the periodontal health status of e-cigarette users. METHODS: , 2024. Two independent reviewers participated in the screening of studies, data extraction, and assessment of the included studies. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer the quality assessment was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias. A frequentist meta-analysis was performed using R Statistical Software. The random effects model was adopted. Data were described as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A p-value of ≤ .05 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Ten studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, the findings were consistent, with most studies showing that e-cigarette users are at greater risk of periodontal disease than nonsmokers, but that they have a lower risk than cigarette smokers. Pooling results showed lower mean probing depth (PD) among nonsmokers than e-smokers (MD: -1.91; 95% CI: [-3.36: -0.47]; p-value = .01) while it was higher among cigarette smokers in participants with periodontitis (MD:0.43; 95%CI: [0.08:0.79]; p-value = .02). Compared to e-smoking, nonsmokers had lower PI (MD: -20.63; 95%CI: [-28.04: -13.21]; p-value < .001) while cigarette smokers had higher PI (MD: 4.88; 95% CI: [-1.52:11.29]; p-value = .135). Among participants with periodontitis, only cigarette smokers had significantly higher PI (MD: 4.53; 95%CI: [1.94:7.13]; p-value < .001). CONCLUSION: Based on the current analysis, conventional cigarette smoking is the most detrimental to periodontal health among the groups compared in all included studies. This indicates that traditional cigarettes have a more severe impact on periodontal tissues than do e-cigarettes. The data suggest a gradient of risk where nonsmokers have the lowest risk, e-cigarette users have a moderate risk, and cigarette smokers have the highest risk for periodontal health issues.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".