ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2020
Smoking cessation is effective in reducing the risk of tooth loss.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patterns and predictors of tooth loss among partially dentate individuals in Jordan: A cross-sectional study.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Smoking Cessation on Periodontal and Peri-Implant Health Status: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2022Review
- Association Between Oral Health and Frailty in Older Korean Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sources MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science and Cochrane Library in September 2019.Study selection Cross-sectional and cohort studies that explored the relationship between smoking cessation and tooth loss.Data extraction and synthesis The reviewers extracted data and contacted authors if relevant data were missing. Risk of bias was assessed using modified versions of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for both cohort and cross-sectional studies. For cross-sectional studies, random-effects model was used to assess the outcome (tooth loss). Estimates were presented as odds ratios (with 95% confidence interval). For cohort studies, random-effects model was also used to compare former and current smokers to never smokers. The estimates were presented as risk ratio (with 95% confidence interval). Heterogeneity was tested for both types of studies.Results Twenty-one studies were included in the review (14 cross-sectional and seven cohort). Of the cross-sectional studies, five studies were of low risk of bias while seven and two studies were of moderate and high risk of bias respectively. Former vs current smokers showed no significant difference in all levels of tooth loss. Of the cohort studies, the risk of tooth loss was twice as much for current smokers compared to former smokers.Conclusions There was not a significant difference in tooth loss between former smokers and never smokers. Current smokers are at a higher risk for tooth loss than former smokers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33339967What 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.