Observational studyAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2025
The Impact of Electronic and Conventional Cigarette Use towards Saliva Profile and Oral Microbiota in Adolescents.
Observational study in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of Electronic Cigarette Use on the Oral Microbiota: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026Pooled it
- Association Between E-Cigarette Use (Vaping) and Oral Health in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Multifunctional effects of Zizyphus mauritiana leaf extract on oral pathogens and wound healing: an integrative in vitro and in vivo study.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Tempeh Extract and HSC-3 Cell Migration: An In Vitro Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Correlation between e-cigarette use and salivary flow rate, pH, and buffering capacity: a cross-sectional pilot study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the salivary profiles of smokers (e-cigarette smokers, e-cigarette and former conventional cigarette smokers, dual users, and conventional cigarette smokers) and non-smokers in adolescents, focusing on acidity level, flow rate, viscosity, as well as the quantity of Streptococcus mutans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Candida albicans.
methodsThis analytical observational study, with a cross-sectional design, involves collecting saliva samples from five groups through the draining method. Saliva viscosity was assessed visually, while saliva flow rate was monitored over a ten-minute period. Quantification of bacterial presence was performed using qPCR, and salivary acidity was determined using a digital pH meter. Chi square and t-test were used to analyze the data.
resultThe total of 390 subjects (smokers n=195; non-smokers n=195), aged 17-25 years, participated in the study. Dual smokers exhibited a notable decrease in salivary pH (p=0.039) compared to non-smokers. Furthermore, significant reductions in flow rate (p<0.001) were observed across the five groups, however, no significant differences were found in saliva viscosity (p=0.070). When considering the four groups excluding conventional cigarette smokers, significant differences were observed in the quantity of Porphyromonas gingivalis (p=0.010) and Candida albicans (p=0.005). Conversely, the prevalence of Streptococcus mutans did not exhibit a significant difference (p=0.635).
conclusionThe study demonstrates that salivary pH, flow rate, and quantity of P. gingivalis as well as C. albicans are significantly different among the five groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.