Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37872276›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2023

Does e-cigarette use affect response to non-surgical periodontal therapy?

Satish Kumar, Marc Shlossman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Satish KumarArizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, Mesa, AZ, USA. satishkumar@atsu.edu.
Marc ShlossmanArizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, Mesa, AZ, USA.
Middle East Studies Association of North America · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

designCross-sectional study CASE SELECTION: Consecutive patient charts (n = 220) at Guy's Dental Hospital between April 2018 and April 2020 were included. The inclusion criteria were adults ≥18 years with a diagnosis of periodontitis (localized or generalized, all stages and grades) and who have received professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) by periodontology graduate students. Data of periodontal indices before and after PMPR (6-20 weeks) were also needed to be available. Exclusion criteria included uncontrolled diabetes, pregnancy, medications attributed to drug induced overgrowth, among others. DATA ANALYSIS: This retrospective study evaluated the response to periodontal treatment in e-cigarette users and they compared the outcomes to non-smokers, former and current smokers. The primary outcome to evaluate the response to periodontal therapy was 'need for surgery'. This was defined by the authors as the number of sextants with ≥2 non-adjacent sites with probing depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm after PMPR. Secondary outcomes included periodontal parameters such as number of sextants with ≥1 site with PD ≥ 5 mm, PD, clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing, recession, and plaque scores.

resultsE-cigarette users and current smokers had similar poorer clinical response to periodontal therapy. Analysis revealed e-cigarette users had more sextants with 'need for surgery' as the primary outcome. Pocket closure outcome (PD ≤ 4 mm with no bleeding on probing) were highest in nonsmokers (77.1%), followed by former smokers (74.9%), current smokers (69.4%), and e-cigarette users (66.6%).

conclusionsE-cigarette users showed less than beneficial response to periodontal therapy compared to non-smokers, who had the best outcome overall.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsVapingAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesSmoking

Identifiers

PMID37872276
PMCPMC10724059
OpenAlexW4387880594

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.