ReviewBrazilian oral research2026
E-cigarettes and periodontal health: current evidence and research gaps.
Review in Brazilian oral research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evidence-based approaches for advancing clinical research and practice: dentistry beyond the myth.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cigarette smoking is a well-established risk factor for periodontitis, contributing to increased clinical attachment loss (CAL), alveolar bone loss, and impaired treatment response. As electronic cigarettes (ECs) are increasingly used as alternatives to combustible tobacco, questions remain regarding their adverse effects on oral and periodontal health. This critical review integrated evidence from experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal and interventional studies to evaluate the relationship between EC use and periodontal health. Experimental and molecular studies supported biological plausibility for periodontal harm, indicating that aerosols can induce oxidative stress, upregulate pro-inflammatory mediators, and disrupt host-microbial interactions. Cross-sectional studies generally reported poorer periodontal conditions among EC users compared with never-smokers, including higher plaque index and periodontal probing depth, although results for CAL and alveolar bone loss were inconsistent. Comparisons between EC users and cigarette smokers often showed more favorable clinical parameters among EC users. Longitudinal evidence continued to be limited. The only prospective cohort study reported higher CAL among EC users than never-smokers and observed an increase in CAL over time exclusively in EC users. Interventional studies assessing response to periodontal therapy have yielded inconsistent results, with some suggesting a poorer treatment response among EC users and others finding no significant differences. Overall, there were Well-designed longitudinal studies with clearly defined exposure groups, standardized periodontal outcomes, and longer follow-up are needed to clarify whether EC use independently contributes to periodontal deterioration.
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.