A pilot study of the gingival response when smokers switch from smoking to vaping

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

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

A comprehensive electronic search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, until January 31st, 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.

The impact of electronic cigarette smoking on periodontal status and proinflammatory cytokine levels: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

E-cigs(E-cigs) use is increasing worldwide. Recent studies suggest that E-cigs contain harmful elements that could lead to adverse oral health outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of E-cigs smoking on periodontal health among current male smokers in Al-Kharj city in Saudi Arabia by assessing periodontal parameters and proinflammatory cytokine levels.

METHODS

Fifty-three male individuals (25 E-smokers and 28 non-smokers) participated in the study. This study compared periodontal parameters, including the plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), and marginal bone loss (MBL), as well as levels of unstimulated whole saliva (UWS), interleukin IL-1B, and IL-6, between E-smokers and non-smokers.

RESULTS

The E-cigs users consumed approximately 432.6 ± 425.22 puffs on average daily, with a nicotine content of approximately 45.2 ± 11.23 mg on average. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of BOP and PI. A statistically significant difference was detected in PPD and CAL (p < 0.05) between the two groups, in which the PPD (4.10 ± 1.87) and CAL (2.72 ± 0.89) were greater in E-smokers. The mean MBL was also higher among E-smokers, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The mean cytokine IL-1B level was found to be (640.75 ± 138.78) among non-smokers and (889.05 ± 540.56) among E-smokers, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). However, while IL-1B had shown a significant difference between groups in the bivariate analysis (t-test), its association with E-cigs use became non-significant in the multivariate model (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02, p = 0.194). The mean IL-6 level among non-smokers was (19.49 ± 11.90) and among E-smokers, it was (17.07 ± 8.21). And, this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that E-cigs smoking had a negative effect on periodontal status (especially PPD, CAL and MBL). These results may contribute to the pathogenesis of periodontal diseases and tissue destruction. Efforts must be made to educate and create awareness among patients and the general community regarding the risks associated with E-cigs usage especially in young populations.

The effects of electronic smoking on dental caries and proinflammatory markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Smoking and the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) are common practices that have significant consequences for oral health. Although the negative impact of traditional tobacco products on oral tissues is widely known, the emergence of e-cigs poses a new obstacle. This review summarises existing data on the influence of e-cigs on oral health, with a specific emphasis on dental caries and pro-inflammatory agents.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus to identify relevant studies published until September 2024. The structured search strategy uncovered 42 articles that were read in full text. The included articles consisted of clinical trials, observational studies, and laboratory investigations that examined the impact of e-cig aerosol on oral bacteria and pro-inflammatory markers and its potential to contribute to dental caries.

Results

The findings indicate that e-cig users may have a higher prevalence of dental caries compared with non-smokers. Most studies focusing on bacteria showed that vaping may inhibit normal flora, giving cariogenic bacteria a chance to grow more. This finding indicates a notable oral health risk associated with vaping. Meta-analyses suggest no effect of using e-cigs on the levels of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8 in saliva, even if it may affect their levels in GCF. However, in GCF, only one study reported TNF-α and IL-1β, and only two studies reported IL-6 and IL-8. Nevertheless, the effects of e-cigs on dental caries require further investigation since the data do not provide a clear picture.

Discussion

This review emphasises the necessity for ongoing research to clarify the mechanisms that cause these consequences and to guide public health policies aimed at reducing the harm caused by e-cigarettes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024537910, PROSPERO (CRD42024537910).

E-Cigarette effects on oral health: A molecular perspective

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have emerged as a potential alternative to traditional smoking and may aid in tobacco harm reduction and smoking cessation. E-cigarette use has notably increased, especially among young non-tobacco users, raising concerns due to the unknown long-term health effects. The oral cavity is the first and one of the most crucial anatomical sites for the deposition of e-cigarette aerosols. E-cigarette aerosols contain nicotine, flavors, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, carcinogens, and other hazardous substances. These aerosols impact the oral cavity, disrupting host-microbial interactions and triggering gingivitis and systemic diseases. Furthermore, oral inflammation and periodontitis can be caused by proinflammatory cytokines induced by e-cigarette aerosols. The toxic components of e-cigarette aerosols increase the cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, reduce antioxidant capacity, increase DNA damage, and disrupt repair processes, which may further contribute to harmful effects on oral epithelum, leading to inflammatory and pre-malignant oral epithelial lesions. In this review, we analyze the toxicological properties of compounds in e-cigarette aerosols, exploring their cytotoxic, genotoxic, and inflammatory effects on oral health and delving into the underlying molecular mechanisms. Further research is essential to understand the impact of e-cigarettes on oral health and make informed regulatory decisions based on reliable scientific evidence.

Immunological Effects of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Review of Current Evidence

Electronic cigarettes (EC) have emerged as a popular alternative to traditional tobacco products, but their impact on immune function has raised significant health concerns. This review explores the immunological effects of EC exposure, focusing on innate and adaptive immune responses. Electronic cigarette aerosol (ECA) induces widespread inflammation. These changes compromise immune cell function, impairing neutrophil chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and oxidative burst while increasing macrophage and dendritic cell recruitment and activation. ECA also disrupts epithelial barriers, increasing susceptibility to bacterial and viral infections. Studies show enhanced biofilm formation in bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae and impaired antiviral responses against pathogens like influenza A and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, EC exposure modulates adaptive immunity, affecting T and B cell function and increasing systemic inflammatory markers. The long-term consequences of these immunological disruptions include heightened risks for chronic inflammatory diseases, respiratory infections, and potentially autoimmune conditions. The widespread adoption of EC, particularly among younger users, poses a growing public health challenge. As the popularity of vaping continues to rise, these immunological disruptions could result in increased healthcare burdens in the future, with higher rates of infections, chronic inflammatory diseases, and immune system-related disorders among those who begin using e-cigarettes at a young age. Understanding the full scope of EC-related health risks is essential for informing public health policies and protecting future generations from the potential long-term effects of vaping.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices that produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers, and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of using EC to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments, and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2024 and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, reference-checked, and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials randomizing people who smoke to an EC or control condition. We included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We used the risk of bias tool (RoB 1) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Important outcomes were biomarkers, toxicants/carcinogens, and longer-term EC use. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 90 completed studies (two new to this update), representing 29,044 participants, of which 49 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated 10 (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 61 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. Nicotine EC results in increased quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (high-certainty evidence) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). The rate of occurrence of AEs is probably similar between groups (moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision)) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nicotine EC probably results in increased quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision) (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is probably little to no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (moderate-certainty evidence) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (low-certainty evidence due to issues with risk of bias) (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 6819 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 3 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; I2 = 6%; low-certainty evidence; 6 studies, 2351 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 4561 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes. There was inconsistency in the AE network, which was explained by a single outlying study contributing the only direct evidence for one of the nodes. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons; hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care or no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were, for the most part, wide for data on AEs, SAEs, and other safety markers, with no evidence for a difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT, but low-certainty evidence for increased AEs compared with behavioural support/no support. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longer, larger studies are needed to fully evaluate EC safety. Our included studies tested regulated nicotine-containing EC; illicit products and/or products containing other active substances (e.g. tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)) may have different harm profiles. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Comparison Between the Conventional and Electronic Smoking Effects on Periodontal Health-A Cross-Sectional Study

Objectives

To compare the adverse effect of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarette smoking on periodontal health.

Materials and Methods

Sixty participants were split into two groups of 30 each (Group A-traditional cigarettes and Group B-e-cigarette smokers). Socio-demographic data, smoking, and oral health status were gathered using a self-administered questionnaire. Gingival index (GI), Russell's periodontal index, and clinical attachment loss (CAL) were recorded in patients of both the groups.

Results

The mean GI (1.79), periodontal index (5.92), and CAL (3.44) were higher in patients using traditional cigarettes than e-cigarettes. The questionnaire revealed that patients using traditional cigarettes had bleeding gums (32.22%), pus in the gums (39.22%), extracted teeth due to mobility (59.65%), discolored tooth (89.66%), and tongue (71.76%), which was more than e-cigarette smokers.

Conclusion

E-cigarette smokers have similar adverse effects on the periodontal tissues but are less as compared to normal cigarette smokers.

Effect of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes on salivary biomarkers: A systematic review

Background

E-cigarette consumption is increasing, and like conventional smoking, it can cause some harmful effects. This systematic review compared the effect of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes on salivary biomarkers.

Methods

The search strategies included electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE) and related journals up to May 2023. A qualitative assessment was performed on data extracted from the included studies. Seven studies were included in this systematic review (number of patients=563).

Results

Eleven biomarkers were assessed and compared between e-cigarette and conventional cigarette smokers. The data showed that the different effects of electronic and conventional cigarettes on the level of these biomarkers were not achievable. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies (I2 statistic>90%), performing a meta-analysis was impossible. Even after a sub-group classification, homogeneous data were not achieved.

Conclusion

The current data do not provide evidence of obtainable outcomes between conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes on salivary biomarkers.

The impact of electronic cigarettes on peri-implant health: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Recent literature suggests that the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) is a substantial contributing factor to the unsuccessful outcomes of dental implant procedures. Our aim was to systematically review the effect of e-cigarette use on clinical (PI, PD, BOP), radiographic (bone loss), and immunologic (IL-1β) peri‑implant parameters.

DATA

Main search terms used in combination: electronic cigarette, peri‑implantitis, vaping.

SOURCES

An electronic search was undertaken for MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and SCOPUS databases between 2017 and 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

The study protocol was developed according to PRISMA guidelines, and the focus question was formulated according to the PICO strategy. No restriction was accepted regarding language or year to avoid selection bias; the initial database search yielded 49 publications. Following the selection process, only seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies were statistically analyzed via MedCalc program. A pooled effect was deemed statistically significant if the p-value was less than 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Electronic cigarettes cause an increase in probing depth, bone loss, and the level of IL-1β, one of the bone destruction mediators in the tissues around the implant, and a decrease in bleeding on probing.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

E-cigarette is a potential risk factor for the healing process and the results of implant treatment, similar to cigarettes. Performing clinical research to evaluate the e-cigarette effect on peri‑implantitis in an age and gender-match population is needed.

Periodontal Health Status in Adults Exposed to Tobacco Heating System Aerosol and Cigarette Smoke vs. Non-Smokers: A Cross-Sectional Study

Tobacco heating systems (THS) are new products on the market, advertised as a less harmful alternative for smokers, in which tobacco is heated and not burned like in conventional cigarettes. This research explored the effect on periodontal tissues in contact with heating and burning tobacco residual products (smoke and tobacco).

METHODS

The sample included 66 subjects, patients of the Clinic of Dentistry in Rijeka, Croatia, aged 26-56 (median 38), 64% females. Three age- and gender-matched groups were formed (each N = 22): non-smokers, classic cigarettes smokers and THS smokers. Probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment loss (CAL) were primary research parameters.

RESULTS

Three groups differed in average PD and CAL (p ≤ 0.002), with cigarette smokers having the highest and non-smokers the lowest values (p ≤ 0.002). THS consumers generally had lower values of periodontal indices than smokers, but only CAL differed significantly (p = 0.011). Periodontal indices CAL and PD were worse in THS consumers than non-smokers, but they did not reach a level of statistical significance. Cigarette smoking was the only predictor of periodontitis (average CAL ≥ 4 mm) in logistic regression models, with an odds ratio of 4.7 (95% confidence interval 1.2-18.3; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to nicotine-containing aerosol of THS in adults has a less harmful effect on periodontal tissues, measurable through periodontal indices (PD and CAL), compared to burning tobacco of conventional cigarettes. THS, presented as an alternative product to classic cigarettes, also has a detrimental effect on the periodontium.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use and Periodontal Health-Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study

(1) Background: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDSs) are rapidly increasing in the U.S., however, information about their long-term risks and benefits remains limited. This study examined the relationship between ENDS use and periodontal health among U.S. adults. (2) Methods: Data came from 33,822 adults who participated in the 2016-2018 wave of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study. Inclusion criteria were adults without a history of cigarette smoking or diabetes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the associations between ENDS use and a history of periodontal disease, with multivariable logistic regression adjusting for factors associated with poor oral health. (3) Results: Of the study participants, 2321 were never ENDS users, 38 were regular ENDS users, and 512 were non-regular ENDS users. Compared to never ENDS users, regular ENDS users had higher odds of poor periodontal health including bone loss around teeth. Regular ENDS use was also independently associated with higher odds of poor oral health compared to non-regular ENDS users. (4) Conclusions: This study suggests an association between ENDS use and increased risk of periodontal health issues in the United States. These findings align with previous research linking ENDS use to poor oral health.

Retrospective exploratory study of smoking status and e-cigarette use with response to non-surgical periodontal therapy

BACKGROUND

To compare periodontal treatment responses in electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) users, non-smokers, former and current smokers.

METHODS

In this retrospective clinical study, 220 patients with periodontitis were seen for baseline periodontal charting, professional-mechanical-plaque-removal (PMPR) and re-evaluation by postgraduate students. Sixty of these patients were former smokers, twenty were former smokers now using e-cigarettes, twenty current smokers, while all others (n = 120) were non-smokers. Effects of smoking status and treatment duration on clinical outcomes were analyzed by linear models using generalized least squares adjusted for known confounders. The primary outcome was "need for surgery" defined as number of sextants with ≥2 non-adjacent sites of probing depths (PD) ≥5 mm.

RESULTS

Compared with non-smokers, e-cigarette users had a less favorable treatment response after PMPR. This included statistically significant increased "need for surgery", as well as increased number of sextants with PD ≥5 mm, number of sites with PD >5 mm and mean PD. There were no statistically significant differences between e-cigarette users and current smokers. Former smokers responded statistically significantly better than e-cigarette users for the primary outcome as well as for the number of sextants and sites with PD ≥5 mm and mean PD.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, e-cigarette users had a statistically significantly less favorable response to PMPR than non-smokers; their response was not statistically significantly different to those of current smokers. This, however, needs to be validated with further research in prospective clinical and observational studies in different populations.

IMPACT OF E-CIGARETTES ON THE ORAL HEALTH - LITERATURE REVIEW

E-cigarettes are electronic devices used to inhale aerosols generated from the vaporization of flavored liquids. Nowadays, the use of e-cigarettes has become one of the most popular alternatives to traditional smoking. The wide variety of devices and liquids makes it challenging to assess the health effects of using e-cigarettes. During the vaporization of e-liquids, toxins, carcinogens, and various other chemicals can be released and inhaled by the user. Limited data exist regarding the potential health impact of exposure to e-vapors, primarily derived from animal studies and in vitro research. The oral tissues are the first site of direct interaction with the components of the inhaled vapor. While e-cigarettes are commonly portrayed as safer alternatives to tobacco cigarettes, little is known about the short- or long-term health effects of their use. The aim of this review is to briefly present the available data regarding the impact of chemical ingredients and toxins present in e-cigarette vapors on oral cavity cells.

A comparison of the caries risk between patients who use vapes or electronic cigarettes and those who do not: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the potential oral health effects of vaping is scarce and there are limited data on possible links to both caries and periodontal disease. The authors assessed the association between electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) or vape use and caries risk level. The Caries Management by Risk Assessment tool was used.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of patient records was conducted; 13,098 patients who attended the dental school clinics from January 1, 2019, through January 1, 2022, were included in the study. Mann-Whitney U test and multivariable ordinal logistic regression were used to assess the relationship between use of e-cigarettes or vapes and caries risk level.

RESULTS

Data from 13,216 patients were included in the data set initially; 13,080 responded "no" when asked whether they used e-cigarettes or vapes (99.3%), and 136 responded "yes" (0.69%). There was a statistically significant difference (P < .001) in caries risk levels between the e-cigarette or vape group and the control group; 14.5%, 25.9%, and 59.6% of the control group were in the low, moderate, and high caries risk categories, respectively, and 6.6%, 14.3%, and 79.1% of the e-cigarette or vape group were in the low, moderate, and high caries risk categories, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study population, there was an association between use of e-cigarettes or vapes and caries risk level of patients; vaping patients had a higher risk of developing caries.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Within the study limitations, it was recommended that use of e-cigarettes or vapes should not only be included in the routine dental-medical history questionnaire, but also among the risk factors that increase a patient's caries risk level.

Tobacco Use and Incidence of Adverse Oral Health Outcomes Among US Adults in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study

Importance

Evolving tobacco use patterns, including increasing electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use, warrant re-examination of the associations between tobacco use and oral health.

Objective

To examine associations between tobacco product use and incidence of adverse oral health outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used nationally representative data from wave (W) 1 to W5 (2013-2019) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Recruitment used a stratified address-based, area-probability household sample of the noninstitutionalized US civilian population. The W1 cohort included respondents aged 18 years and older without lifetime history of oral health outcomes at W1 or W3, depending on when the outcome was first assessed. Data analysis was performed from October 2021 to September 2022.

Exposures

Current (every day or someday use) established (lifetime use of at least 100 cigarettes or "fairly regular" use of other products) use of cigarettes, ENDS, cigars, pipes, hookah, snus, and smokeless tobacco, excluding snus at W1 to W4.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were past 12-month self-reported diagnosis of gum disease and precancerous oral lesions (W2-W5) and bone loss around teeth, bleeding after brushing or flossing, loose teeth, and 1 or more teeth removed (W4-W5).

Results

Sample sizes varied across the 6 oral health outcomes (13 149 respondents for the gum disease sample, 14 993 respondents for the precancerous oral lesions sample, 16 312 respondents for the bone loss around teeth sample, 10 286 respondents for the bleeding after brushing or flossing sample, 15 686 respondents for the loose teeth sample, and 12 061 respondents for the 1 or more teeth removed sample). Slightly more than half of adults (52%-54% across the 6 samples) were women, and the majority were of non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity. Cox proportional hazards models were developed with covariates that included time-dependent tobacco use variables mutually adjusted for each other. Cigarette smoking was positively associated with incidence of gum disease diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.11-1.60), loose teeth (AHR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.75), and 1 or more teeth removed (AHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.18-1.74). Cigar smoking was positively associated with incidence of precancerous oral lesions (AHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.38-3.43). In addition, hookah smoking was positively associated with incidence of gum disease diagnosis (AHR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.20-2.63), and ENDS use was positively associated with incidence of bleeding after brushing or flossing (AHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54). No associations were observed between snus and smokeless tobacco excluding snus and incidence of oral health outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

The observed associations of combustible tobacco use with incidence of several adverse oral health outcomes and ENDS use with incidence of bleeding after brushing or flossing highlight the importance of longitudinal studies and emphasize the continued importance of tobacco cessation counseling and resources in clinical practice.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Health effects and known pathology associated with the use of E-cigarettes

In recent years, new nicotine delivery methods have emerged, and many users are choosing electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) over traditional tobacco cigarettes. E-cigarette use is very popular among adolescents, with more than 3.5 million currently using these products in the US. Despite the increased prevalence of e-cigarette use, there is limited knowledge regarding the health impact of e-cigarettes on the general population. Based on published findings by others, E-cigarette is associated with lung injury outbreak, which increased health and safety concerns related to consuming this product. Different components of e-cigarettes, including food-safe liquid solvents and flavorings, can cause health issues related to pneumonia, pulmonary injury, and bronchiolitis. In addition, e-cigarettes contain alarmingly high levels of carcinogens and toxicants that may have long-lasting effects on other organ systems, including the development of neurological manifestations, lung cancer, cardiovascular disorders, and tooth decay. Despite the well- documented potential for harm, e-cigarettes do not appear to increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV- 2 infection. Furthermore, some studies have found that e-cigarette users experience improvements in lung health and minimal adverse effects. Therefore, more studies are needed to provide a definitive conclusion on the long-term safety of e-cigarettes. The purpose of this review is to inform the readers about the possible health-risks associated with the use of e-cigarettes, especially among the group of young and young-adults, from a molecular biology point of view.

Tobacco Use and Oral Health

This review outlines the important oral implications of tobacco use. The lining of the mouth (oral mucosa), if exposed to tobacco and its products in a susceptible individual, can develop benign, potentially malignant, and malignant tumours. Treatment and prognosis depend on tumour type, how early it is detected, its size and site in the oral cavity and whether it has spread. Advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) has a 20% 5-year survival rate. Tobacco use also increases the risk of periodontitis, peri-implantitis, caries, alveolar osteitis and halitosis. Although less life threatening than OSCC, these tobacco related conditions create a substantial financial and health burden for individuals and society. Dental practitioners routinely examine the oral cavity for signs of mucosal and tooth changes, are experienced in recognising variations from normal and have established management and referral pathways. They are also ideally positioned to provide brief interventions to assist their patients to quit smoking.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Association between vaping and untreated caries: A cross-sectional study of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-2018 data

BACKGROUND

With the rise in the prevalence of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) and vaping products and the emergence of evidence indicating their cariogenic potential, it is essential to examine the association between vaping and untreated caries at a population level.

METHODS

The authors obtained data from the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and investigated the outcome variable-untreated caries-using oral health examination data. The authors applied multiple logistic regression analyses to assess the association between untreated caries and smoking (cigarette smoking, vaping, and both) while controlling for education, race or ethnicity, income, age, sex, and time since previous dental visit.

RESULTS

A total of 4,618 participants were included in the analyses for this cross-sectional study. Participants who currently smoked e-cigarettes were more likely to have untreated caries (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.29) than those who had never smoked, when adjusted for demographic variables. Similarly, dual smokers (e-cigarette and conventional smokers) were more likely to have untreated caries compared with nondual smokers (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.36 to 4.36).

CONCLUSION

Both vaping and dual smoking are associated with an increased occurrence of untreated caries.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Vaping status should be included as a part of health history questionnaires for patients. Dental professionals should be informed of the potential oral health implications of vaping and, in turn, impart this knowledge to patients.

Effects of electronic cigarette aerosol exposure on oral and systemic health

Conventional cigarette smoke harms nearly every organ of the body and is the leading cause of death in the United States and in the world. Decades of research have associated conventional cigarette smoke with several diseases and death. Heavily marketed, electronic nicotine delivery systems such as electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are available in a variety of flavors and high nicotine concentrations. In 2019, a severe lung disease outbreak linked to e-cigarette use led to several deaths, which was called electronic-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). Even though the trend of e-cigarette use among teens continues to increase, information on the effects of e-cigarette smoke on oral and overall health are still scarce. This review discusses the possible health effects due to unregulated e-cigarette use, as well as the health effects of second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke on non-smokers.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic Cigarettes and Oral Health

Novel nicotine products, particularly electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), have become increasingly popular over the past decade. E-cigarettes are sometimes regarded as a less harmful alternative to tobacco smoking, and there is some evidence of their potential role as a smoking cessation aid. However, there are concerns about their health consequences, particularly in users who are not tobacco smokers, and also when used long term. Given the mode of delivery of these products, there is potential for oral health consequences. Over the past few years, there have been an increasing number of studies conducted to explore their oral health effects. In vitro studies have reported a range of cellular effects, but these are much less pronounced than those resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke. Microbiological studies have indicated that e-cigarette users have a distinct microbiome, and there is some indication this may be more pathogenic compared to nonusers. Evidence of oral health effects from clinical trials is still limited, and most studies to date have been small in scale and usually cross-sectional in design. Epidemiological studies highlight concerns over oral dryness, irritation, and gingival diseases. Interpreting data from e-cigarette studies is challenging, given the different populations that have been investigated and the continual emergence of new products. Overall, studies reveal potential oral health harms, underscoring the importance of efforts to reduce use in nonsmokers. However, in smokers who are using e-cigarettes as an aid to help them quit, the benefits of quitting tobacco smoking may outweigh any negative oral health impacts of e-cigarette use, particularly in the short term. Future research is needed to understand the clinical significance of some of the biological changes observed by following different cohorts of users longitudinally in carefully designed clinical studies and pragmatic trials supported by high-quality in vitro studies.

What should every dental health professional know about electronic cigarettes?

Electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes) have become increasingly popular around the world. Currently, dental professionals' knowledge and attitudes are varied with many clinicians unclear regarding the impact of E-cigarette products on the oral and general health of their patients. With developing social and health-related challenges, advice of dental and medical associations and other regulatory bodies on E-cigarette use is changing. Growing evidence demonstrating the risks of E-cigarette usage has prompted a review of legislation in the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Australia and Canada to include the sale and availability of E-cigarettes, particularly those containing nicotine. Further consideration within the scientific and public health community is being given to assessing demographic usage patterns particularly uptake by non-smokers and adolescents, efficacy as a cessation tool, the impact of vapour on bystanders and direct injuries via explosions as well as emerging lung injuries. This article aims to provide a summary of the most up to date evidence relating to E-cigarette use, the latest position of dental associations and the oral health implications of E-cigarettes compared to conventional smoking. The article also aims to collate this information in order to provide dental clinicians with guidance on how to advise patients, specifically in answering common questions posed regarding E-cigarette use.

Effect of Switching to the Tobacco Heating System Versus Continued Cigarette Smoking on Chronic Generalized Periodontitis Treatment Outcome: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a significant risk factor for periodontal disease and tooth loss, as shown in several clinical studies comparing smokers and nonsmokers. Although only a few longitudinal studies have assessed the outcome of periodontal disease after smoking cessation, they indicated that recovery after nonsurgical treatment was more successful in those who had quit smoking. As part of tobacco harm reduction strategies, substituting cigarettes with alternative, less harmful tobacco products is an approach complementary to cessation for smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke. The Tobacco Heating System (THS), developed by Philip Morris International (commercialized as IQOS), is part of the heat-not-burn product category. The IQOS device electrically heats tobacco instead of burning it, at much lower temperatures than cigarettes, thereby producing substantially lower levels of harmful and potentially harmful constituents, while providing the nicotine, taste, ritual, and a sensory experience that closely parallel those of cigarettes. Phillip Morris International has published the results from a broad clinical assessment program, which was established to scientifically substantiate the harm reduction potential of the THS among adult healthy smokers switching to the THS. The program is now progressing toward including adult smokers with smoking-related diseases.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study is to demonstrate favorable changes of periodontal endpoints in response to mechanical periodontal therapy in patients with generalized chronic periodontitis who completely switched to THS use compared with continued cigarette smoking.

METHODS

This is a randomized controlled two-arm parallel-group multicenter Japanese study conducted in patients with chronic generalized periodontitis who switch from cigarettes to THS compared with smokers continuing to smoke cigarettes for 6 months. The patients were treated with mechanical periodontal therapy as per standard of care in Japan. The primary objective of the study is to demonstrate the beneficial effect of switching to THS use compared with continued cigarette smoking on pocket depth (PD) reduction in all sites with an initial PD≥4 mm. The secondary objectives include evaluation of other periodontal parameters (eg, clinical attachment level or gingival inflammation) and overall oral health status upon switching to THS. Safety was monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

In total, 172 subjects were randomized to the cigarette (n=86) or THS (n=86) groups, and all 172 completed the study. The conduct phase of the study is completed, while data cleaning and analyses are ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to test a heat-not-burn tobacco product in smokers with an already established disease. The results should further strengthen the evidence that switching to THS can significantly reduce the risk of smoking-related diseases if favorable changes in the evolution of chronic generalized periodontitis after mechanical therapy are found when compared with continued cigarette smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03364751; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03364751.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/15350.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Interventions to prevent periodontal disease in tobacco-, alcohol-, and drug-dependent individuals

Substance abuse affects more than one sixth of the world's population. More importantly, the nature of the abuse and the type of addictive substances available to individuals is increasing exponentially. All substances with abusive potential impact both the human immuno-inflammatory system and oral microbial communities, and therefore play a critical role in the etiopathogenesis of periodontal diseases. Evidence strongly supports the efficacy of professionally delivered cessation counseling. Dentists, dental therapists, and hygienists are ideally placed to deliver this therapy, and to spearhead efforts to provide behavioral and pharmacologic support for cessation. The purpose of this review is to examine the biologic mechanisms underlying their role in disease causation, to understand the pharmacologic and behavioral basis for their habituation, and to investigate the efficacy of population-based and personalized interventions in prevention of periodontal disease.

Electronic cigarette liquid substances propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin induce an inflammatory response in gingival epithelial cells

Information on the effects of propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG) and on cytotoxicity and subsequent activation of the biological mediators is limited in periodontal diseases. This study analyzes the effect of unflavored PG/VG alone or in combination with nicotine on gingival epithelial cells. The cells were exposed to different PG/VG (± nicotine) concentrations for 24 h and cytotoxicity was evaluated by calorimetric 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromid assay. The expressions of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)-9 were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and a western blotting. Stimulation with PG/VG mixtures reduced cell viability compared to nonexposed controls (p < 0.05). Adding PG/VG increased the levels of IL-6, IL-8, and MMP-9, and the amount of PG had more biological impact compared to the VG amount. The nicotine augmented this effect compared to its nicotine-free counterparts. In western blotting result, MMP-9 was clearly activated in almost all samples. These findings suggest that the main constituents PG/VG are cytotoxic and able to induce biological response in gingival cells in vitro. Despite being advertised as less harmful than conventional cigarettes, electronic cigarette liquid pose certain risks on periodontal cells. Awareness about the effects of electronic cigarettes on periodontal diseases must be increased.

Harmful chemicals emitted from electronic cigarettes and potential deleterious effects in the oral cavity

Use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), such as electronic cigarettes (e-cigs), is increasing across the US population and is particularly troubling due to their adoption by adolescents, teens, and young adults. The industry’s marketing approach for these instruments of addiction has been to promote them as a safer alternative to tobacco, a behavioral choice supporting smoking cessation, and as the ‘cool’ appearance of vaping with flavored products (e.g. tutti frutti, bubble gum, and buttered popcorn etc.). Thus, there is a clear need to better document the health outcomes of e-cig use in the oral cavity of the addicted chronic user. There appears to be an array of environmental toxins in the vapors, including reactive aldehydes and carbonyls resulting from the heating elements action on fluid components, as well as from the composition of chemical flavoring agents. The chemistry of these systems shows that the released vapors from the e-cigs frequently contain levels of environmental toxins that considerably exceed federal occupational exposure limits. Additionally, the toxicants in the vapors appear to be retained in the host fluids/tissues at levels often approximating 90% of the levels in the e-cig vapors. These water-soluble reactive toxins can challenge the oral cavity constituents, potentially contributing to alterations in the autochthonous microbiome and host cells critical for maintaining oral homeostasis. This review updates the existing chemistry/environmental aspects of e-cigs, as well as providing an overview of the somewhat limited data on potential oral health effects that could occur across the lifetime of daily e-cig users.

Oral erosions associated with surreptitious marijuana vaping in an adolescent boy

A 15-year-old boy presented with painful ulcerations affecting the oral mucosa that were eventually attributed to marijuana vaping. In this case report, we highlight cannabis vaping as a potential cause of oral erosions due to injury and chronic inflammation of the oral mucosa.

The oral health impact of electronic cigarette use: a systematic review

Introduction: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is becoming more prevalent and is particularly popular among adolescents and conventional smokers. While the oral health sequelae of conventional smoking are well-established, the impact of e-cigarettes on oral health is still unknown. This study aims to systematically review the available research evidence on the oral health impact of e-cigarette use.Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and used the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool to evaluate the evidence. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched for studies including case reports. Two independent reviewers extracted data and synthesized the findings.Results: Ninety-nine articles were included in this systematic review. Analyses of the articles yielded seven categories based on symptom similarity and/or focus: mouth effects, throat effects, periodontal effects, dental effects, cytotoxic/genotoxic/oncologic effects, oral microbiome effects, and traumatic/accidental injury. The majority of mouth and throat symptoms experienced by e-cigarette users were relatively minor and temporary, with some evidence that conventional smokers who switched to e-cigarettes experienced mitigation of these symptoms. E-cigarette exposure increased the risk for deteriorating periodontal, dental and gingival health as well as changes to the oral microbiome. Extensive dental damage as a result of e-cigarette explosions were described in case reports. Components of e-cigarette vapor have known cytotoxic, genotoxic, and carcinogenic properties.Conclusions: Although switching to e-cigarettes may mitigate oral symptomatology for conventional smokers, findings from this review suggest that a wide range of oral health sequelae may be associated with e-cigarette use. Well-designed studies to investigate oral health outcomes of e-cigarette use are needed.

Evaluation of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin (IL)-1β levels among subjects vaping e-cigarettes and nonsmokers

AIM

The present study aimed to evaluate peri-implant immunological parameters along with clinical and radiographic parameters amongst subjects vaping e-cigarettes and nonsmokers (NS). Two immunological parameters that were included were measurement of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin (IL)-1β.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A statistically significant number of subjects were included in the study and further divided into two groups: Group-1: Vaping e-cigs (n = 47) Group-2: Nonsmokers (n = 45) A structured questionnaire was used at baseline for data collection related to demographic and peri-implant data of each individual. Baseline parameters included plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, and peri-implant bone loss (PI, BOP, PD, and PIBL, respectively) for those vaping e-cigs and nonsmokers with the aid of standardized digital radiographs. ELISA kit was used to assess immunologic parameters using sulcular fluid collected from peri-implant region (PISF).

RESULTS

Bleeding on probing (BOP) was found significantly high in nonsmokers compared to the vaping group. But probing depth greater than 4 mm and PIBL scores were significantly higher in the vaping group than nonsmokers. Mean concentrations of immunologic parameters were significantly higher in vaping group than in nonsmokers. TNF-α levels and IL-1β levels were found to have a positive correlation with bone loss around implants (PIBL). Besides, TNF-α also had a positive correlation with bleeding on probing in vaping group compared to nonsmokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to the effect of nicotine on the peri-implant tissue, levels of inflammatory mediators as detected by ELISA tests were found to be higher showing a greater amount of localized inflammatory tissue destruction and a compromised peri-implant area in vaping subjects. PISF concentrations were also found relatively higher than nonsmokers.

Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy - Evidence and Opinion

Effective non-surgical periodontal therapy is fundamental to achieve and maintain periodontal health, particularly in individuals who are susceptible to periodontitis. This article aims to highlight current evidence and published guidance, together with personal insights and suggestions from the author's clinical experience to help with management of patients utilising this common treatment modality.

Factors affecting decision making at reassessment of periodontitis. Part 2: interpretation of clinical findings - systemic factors

This paper is the second in a four-part series outlining treatment planning at periodontal reassessment. The first article focussed on the information that should be gathered at the reassessment appointment. Treatment can involve a range of non-surgical and surgical approaches. A variety of general, practical and local site factors can affect the choice of one option over another in choosing the most predictable treatment option. Residual periodontal probing depths can be associated with both systemic and local factors. This article (part 2) outlines systemic factors that need to be assessed when faced with residual periodontal probing depths.

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) and Their Relevance in Oral Health

The number and popularity of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and especially e-cigarettes (e-cigs) have been increasing in the last decade. Although ENDS owe their popularity to excluding the harmful chemicals that are present in tobacco smoke, there is a debate whether they are safe, regulated, and as harmless as they are assumed to be and have potential unknown long-term effects. Involvement of cigarette smoking to the progression of periodontal diseases, other adverse oral health outcomes, and its detrimental effects to oral health are well-described. ENDS producer companies claim that these products can improve oral health by providing alternatives to smoking. However, the effect of e-cigs on oral health is not fully understood and is still debated among many scientists and clinicians. The number of studies addressing the potential toxic effect of ENDS or e-cig aerosol on oral cells is limited along with the clinical studies which are still preliminary, and their sample size is limited. The long-term effects of inhaled aerosols and the potential synergistic effect of the e-cigs components are not known. It is essential and of utmost importance to determine whether exposure to ENDS aerosol contributes to the progression of periodontal diseases and how it affects periodontal ligament and gingival cells which are believed to be its first targets. This review briefly summarizes the available evidence about the effects of e-cigs on periodontal health including several pathophysiological events, such as oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammation, cellular senescence, dysregulated repair, and periodontal diseases.

Tobacco-product usage as a risk factor for dental implants

The oral cavities of tobacco smokers and users of smokeless tobacco products are exposed to high concentrations of nicotine. A limited number of animal studies have assessed the effect of nicotine on osseointegration. Results from experimental studies have reported a statistically significant decrease, at 4 weeks of follow-up, in bone-to-implant contact among rats exposed to nicotine compared with unexposed rats. Nicotine increases the production of inflammatory cytokines (such as interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) by osteoblasts. Waterpipe, pipe, and cigarette smokers are at increased risk of developing oral cancer, periodontal disease, and alveolar bone loss. One explanation for this is that smokers (regardless of the type of tobacco product) are exposed to similar chemicals, such as nicotine, tar, oxidants, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. Moreover, raised levels of proinflammatory cytokines have been identified in the gingival crevicular fluid of cigarette smokers with peri-implant diseases. Therefore, it is hypothesized that nicotine and chemicals in tobacco smoke induce a state of oxidative stress in peri-implant tissues (gingiva and alveolar bone), thereby increasing the likelihood of peri-implant disease development via an inflammatory response, which if left uncontrolled, will result in implant failure/loss. In this regard, tobacco smoking (including cigarettes, waterpipe, and pipe) is a significant risk factor for peri-implant diseases. The impact of vaping electronic cigarettes using nicotine-containing e-juices remains unknown. Habitual use of smokeless tobacco products is associated with oral inflammatory conditions, such as oral precancer, cancer, and periodontal disease. However, the effect of habitual use of smokeless tobacco products on the success and survival of dental implants remains undocumented.

Novel Nicotine Delivery Systems

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are devices that contain a power source, a heating element, and a tank or cartridge containing an “e-liquid,” which is a mixture of nicotine and flavoring in a glycerol–propylene glycol vehicle. Their increasing popularity among adolescents might be attributed to aggressive marketing in physical venues, social media outlets, as well as irreversible changes caused by nicotine in the developing brains of youth and young adults, predisposing them to addictive behaviors. Adolescent ENDS users were 4 times more likely to initiate cigarette smoking, and the odds of quitting smoking were lower and, in many instances, delayed for those using ENDS. ENDS also renormalize cigarette-like behaviors, such as inhaling/exhaling smoke. The oral cavity is the initial point of contact of ENDS and the first affected system in humans. Oral health depends on an intricate balance in the interactions between oral bacteria and the human immune system, and dysbiosis of oral microbial communities underlies the etiology of periodontitis, caries, and oral cancer. Emerging evidence from subjects with periodontitis as well as periodontally healthy subjects demonstrates that e-cigarette use is associated with a compositional and functional shift in the oral microbiome, with an increase in opportunistic pathogens and virulence traits.

Tobacco-use patterns and self-reported oral health outcomes: A cross-sectional assessment of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study, 2013-2014

BACKGROUND

Few studies consider simultaneously the oral health implications of nontraditional tobacco products and tobacco-use patterns. The authors aimed to evaluate self-reported gingival disease among cigarette smokers and users of other types of tobacco products.

METHODS

The authors used survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression to assess associations between different tobacco products, use patterns (for example, dual or multiple tobacco product use or product switching); and lifetime history of gingival disease diagnosis and treatment. They used the nationally representative (US) Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study's Wave 1 (2013-2014) adult data (N = 32,320).

RESULTS

Overall, 12.1% of participants self-reported gingival disease diagnosis, and 19.1% reported receiving treatment. Groups with the highest adjusted relative odds for diagnosis (reference, lifetime tobacco never users) were pipe users (2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 5.3), e-cigarette users (2.9; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.5), multiple tobacco product users (2.8; 95% CI, 2.4 to 3.4), and recent (< 12 months) quitters (2.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.8). Similarly, odds of treatment report were highest among pipe users (2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.1), e-cigarette users (2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.1), multiple tobacco product users (1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9), and recent quitters (1.7; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous tobacco-use patterns were associated with worse periodontal health compared with tobacco never users. These findings are consistent with previous biological and epidemiologic evidence linking tobacco use to poor periodontal health.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Dental clinicians should anticipate various tobacco-use patterns among their patients, all of which may impact oral health. Oral health care professionals should remain informed of, screen for, and address the use of all tobacco products in practice.

Association between Regular Electronic Nicotine Product Use and Self-reported Periodontal Disease Status: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Survey

Electronic nicotine product use is increasing in the U.S., but few studies have addressed its effects on oral health. The goal of this work was to determine the association between electronic nicotine product use and periodontal disease. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health adult survey data from 2013⁻2016 (waves 1, 2 and 3) was used for the analysis. Longitudinal electronic nicotine product users used electronic nicotine products regularly every day or somedays in all three waves. Participants with new cases of gum disease reported no history of gum disease in wave 1 but reported being diagnosed with gum disease in waves 2 or 3. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to determine the association between electronic nicotine product use and new cases of gum disease after controlling for potential cofounders. Compared to never users, longitudinal electronic nicotine product users had increased odds of being diagnosed with gum disease (OR 1.76, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.12⁻2.76) and bone loss around teeth (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06⁻2.63). These odds were higher for participants with a history of marijuana and a history of illicit or non-prescribed drug use. Our findings show that e-cigarettes may be harmful to oral health.

Perceived health effects of vaping among Hungarian adult e-cigarette-only and dual users: a cross-sectional internet survey

BACKGROUND

Knowledge about the health effects of e-cigarette use (or vaping) among past and current combustible cigarette users is limited. Several studies have assessed vaping-related adverse events (AEs) and beneficial health effects, however, most studies focused on AEs in general and examined only a few physiological changes that vapers experience. This study aims to explore self-reported AEs and perceived health changes due to e-cigarette use among Hungarian adult e-cigarette-only users (former smokers who switched completely to e-cigarette use) and dual users (smokers who use e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco cigarettes concomitantly).

METHODS

A cross-sectional, web-based survey of 1042 adult Hungarian e-cigarette users was conducted in 2015. Participants reported AEs and changes in physiological functions since they switched from smoking to e-cigarette use or while dually using e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. Confirmatory factor analysis with covariates was applied to explain perceived health changes due to e-cigarette-only use and dual use.

RESULTS

Dual users (17.6%) were significantly more likely to report AEs of vaping than e-cigarette-only users (26.2% vs. 11.8%, p < 0.001). Experiencing health improvements were significantly more likely among e-cigarette-only users than for dual users for all surveyed physiological functions. E-cigarette-only users reported larger effects of vaping on sensory, physical functioning, and mental health factors compared to dual users. Self-reported changes in sensory and physical functioning were significantly higher among individuals using e-cigarettes more than a year and people who were past heavy smokers (smoked ≥20 cigarettes per day). Gender was related to sensory improvement only; males reported greater improvement than females.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of e-cigarette-only users reported more perceived beneficial changes in physiological functions and fewer AEs than dual users. Perceived short-term benefits of e-cigarette use may reinforce users despite the uncertainty of long-term health consequences. Health professionals should provide balanced information regarding the possible short- and long-term positive and negative health effects of e-cigarette use during consultations with patients.

Proinflammatory cytokine levels and peri-implant parameters among cigarette smokers, individuals vaping electronic cigarettes, and non-smokers

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking compromises the prognosis of dental implant treatment and is associated with increased risk of peri-implant bone loss and increased implant failure rate. There is a dearth of studies that have compared clinical, radiographic, and immunological peri-implant parameters among cigarette smokers (CS), individuals vaping e-cigarettes (e-cigs), and non-smokers (NS). This study aimed to compare clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters and levels of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 and interleukin (IL)-1β levels among CS, individuals' vaping e-cigs, and NS.

METHODS

Thirty-two CS (group 1), 31 individuals vaping e-cigs (group 2), and 32 NS (group 3) were included. Demographic- and implant-related data were collected using a structured baseline questionnaire. Peri-implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD) were recorded and marginal bone loss (MBL) were assessed using standardized digital radiographs. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to assess levels of MMP-9 and IL-1β in peri-implant sulcular fluid. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to analyze for correlations of MMP-9 and IL-1β levels with peri-implant parameters.

RESULTS

BOP showed significantly higher values in group 3 as compared with groups 1 and 2 (P < 0.01). PI (P < 0.01), PD ≥ 4 mm (P < 0.01), and mean concentrations of MMP-9 (P < 0.001) and IL-1β (P < 0.01) were significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 than group 3. MBL was significantly higher in group 1 as compared with group 2 and group 3 (P < 0.01). Significant positive correlations were found between MMP-9 (P = 0.0198) and IL-1β (P = 0.0047) levels and MBL in group 1; and a significant positive correlation between IL-1β and MBL in group 2 (P = 0.0031).

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant health was compromised among CS than vaping individuals and NS. Increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines in CS and vaping individuals may suggest greater peri-implant inflammatory response.

Peri-implant parameters, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interleukin-1 beta levels in vaping individuals

BACKGROUND

To the author's knowledge, there has been no study that has assessed clinical, radiographic, and immunological peri-implant parameters among individuals vaping e-cigarette (e-cig).

PURPOSE

This pilot study aimed to compare clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters and levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin (IL)-1β levels among individuals vaping e-cigs and never smoker (NS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-seven individuals vaping e-cigs (group-1) and 45 NS (group-2) were included. Demographic and implant-related data were collected using a structured baseline questionnaire. Peri-implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD) were recorded and peri-implant bone loss (PIBL) were assessed using standardized digital radiographs. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to assess the levels of TNF-α and IL-1β in peri-implant sulcular fluid.

RESULTS

Bleeding on probing showed statistically significantly higher values in group-2 patients as compared to group-1 patients (P < .01). Probing depth ≥ 4 mm and PIBL was statistically significantly higher in group-1 patients as compared to group-2 patients (P < .05). Mean concentrations of TNF-α (P < .001) and IL-1β (P < .01) were statistically significantly increased in individuals in group 1 as compared with group 2. A significant positive correlations were found between TNF-α levels and BOP (P = .024) and PIBL (P = .016); and significant positive correlation was found between IL-1β and PIBL (P = .018) in group 1, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters are compromised among vaping individuals. Increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines in peri-implant sulcular fluid may suggest greater local inflammatory response in vaping individuals for peri-implant inflammation.

Comparison of Periodontal Parameters and Self-Perceived Oral Symptoms Among Cigarette Smokers, Individuals Vaping Electronic Cigarettes, and Never-Smokers

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, there are no studies that have compared periodontal parameters and self-perceived oral symptoms (OSs) among cigarette smokers (CSs) (group 1), individuals exclusively vaping electronic cigarettes (group 2), and never-smokers (NSs) (group 3). The aim of this study is to assess periodontal parameters and self-perceived OSs among vaping individuals, CSs, and NSs.

METHODS

Ninety-four male participants (groups 1, 2, and 3: 33, 31, and 30 individuals, respectively) were included. Demographic data, self-perceived OSs, and duration and daily frequency of vaping and smoking were gathered using a questionnaire. Full-mouth plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD) ≥4 mm, and clinical attachment loss (AL) were measured; marginal bone loss (MBL) around all teeth was measured on digital radiographs. Numbers of missing teeth (MT) were also recorded. Odds ratios were calculated for OSs, and periodontal parameters were assessed using analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc tests. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

PI (P <0.01) and PD ≥4 mm (P <0.01) were significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3. BOP was significantly higher in group 3 than in groups 1 (P <0.01) and 2 (P <0.01). There was no difference in number of MT, clinical AL, and MBL among all groups. Gingival pain was more often reported by individuals in group 1 than by individuals in groups 2 (P <0.01) and 3 (P <0.01).

CONCLUSION

Periodontal inflammation and self-perceived OSs were poorer among CSs than among vaping individuals and NSs.