Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21477320›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2011

Causal assessment of smoking and tooth loss: a systematic review of observational studies.

Takashi Hanioka, Miki Ojima, Keiko Tanaka, Keitaro Matsuo, Fumihito Sato, Hideo Tanaka

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Influence of Smoking on Periodontal and Implant Therapy: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Takashi HaniokaDepartment of Preventive and Public Health Dentistry, Fukuoka Dental College, Fukuoka, Japan. haniokat@college.fdcnet.ac.jp
Miki Ojima
Keiko Tanaka
Keitaro Matsuo
Fumihito Sato
Hideo Tanaka

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTooth loss impairs oral function. The aim of the present review was to evaluate the causal association between smoking and tooth loss on the basis of high-quality studies.

methodsRelevant literature was searched and screened, and the methodological quality was assessed. Information on the strength of the association between smoking and tooth loss, the dose-response relationship and natural experimental data was collected and evaluated with respect to consistency and study design.

resultsOur literature search yielded 496 citations, and 6 cross-sectional and 2 cohort high-quality studies examining 58,755 subjects in four countries. All studies reported significant associations, although the strength of the association was usually moderate. Four studies reported dose-response relationships between exposure to smoking and the risk of developing tooth loss. A decrease in the risk of tooth loss for former smokers was evident in six studies. Interpretation of evidence for each element was consistent, despite some shortcomings regarding study type and population.

conclusionsBased on the consistent evidence found with the existing biological plausibility, a causal association between smoking and tooth loss is highly likely. Further studies using a cohort design and different populations are necessary to confirm this association.

Indexed as

HumansSmokingTooth Loss

Identifiers

PMID21477320
PMCPMC3087682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.