ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Tooth loss and risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma in Chinese Han population.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Linking periodontitis with 20 cancers, emphasis on oropharyngeal cancer: a Mendelian randomization analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing the Role of Oral Health as a Risk Factor in Oral Cancer.Cureus · 2023Review
- Periodontal disease and cancer: Epidemiologic studies and possible mechanisms.Periodontology 2000 · 2020Review
- Association between tooth loss and upper gastrointestinal cancer: A 30-year follow-up of the Linxian Dysplasia Nutrition Intervention Trial Cohort.Thoracic cancer · 2019Article
- The Photomodulation Activity of Metformin Against Oral Microbiome.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2019Review
- Tooth loss and cancer risk: a dose-response meta analysis of prospective cohort studies.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Association between tooth loss and risk of oesophageal cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis.SpringerPlus · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAssociation between tooth loss and oral cancer risk was investigated primary studies and meta-analyses, however, the results remain inconsistent. This study is to test the association between tooth loss and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in Chinese Han population.
methodsCase-control study including histologically confirmed OSCC cases and healthy controls individually matched to the cases for age, sex, and district of residence between May 1, 2010, and Match 31, 2014. Univariate and multiple logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the STATA 12.0 software.
resultsFinally included 150 OSCC patients and 167 healthy controls. Cases had a significantly higher mean (SD) number of lost teeth than controls (10.03±6.62 vs. 8.69±5.20; P = 0.045). The results of univariate analysis and adjustment for smoking and alcohol showed a non-significant association between tooth loss and OSCC. After adjustment for age at diagnosis, gender, smoking, alcohol use, body mass index, and history of diabetes mellitus, those in the upper tertiles of lost tooth were significantly more likely to have OSCC (OR = 3.64, 95% CI = 1.15-11.53, P = 0.03; P for trend = 0.11) than in the lower tertiles. The unadjusted and adjusted results of per teeth also revealed non-significant association.
conclusionsTooth loss may be not associated with risk of oral cancer in this case-control study. The relevant large-scale studies in Chinese are suggested to perform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26885159PMC4724005W2419503091What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.