MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406802930 · doi:10.1016/j.identj.2024.12.036

Effects of Electronic Cigarettes on Periodontal Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4406802930 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Dental Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDentistryEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it