4.5 Review

The association between smoking and periapical periodontitis: a systematic review

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 533-545

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03094-6

Keywords

Periapical periodontitis; Prevalence; Smoking; Apical lesion; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to examine if, in adult patients, the absence or presence of smoking influenced the prevalence of periapical periodontitis (PP). Materials and methods Databases were searched, and original research manuscripts up to June 2019 were identified by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used for certainty in the evidence. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5 software. Risk ratio (RR) was used for the cohort studies, and odds ratio (OR) was used for the case-control studies with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results All the studies had many covariates and confounding variables. Three longitudinal cohort articles discussed radiographic findings as they related to the prevalence of PP in root-filled teeth. The RR of smoking and the prevalence of PP was 2.11 (95% CI 0.88-5.05, p = 0.09). Nine case-control studies focused on the prevalence of PP and smoking. There was a positive association between smoking and the prevalence of PP with an OR of 2.78 and a 95% confidence interval of 2.23-3.48, with p value < 0.05. The quality of the studies was fair per NOS, and the certainty of the literature assessment was moderate per GRADE. Conclusions The current best available evidence suggests that smoking was associated with the prevalence of PP but more studies are needed to report this association in the longitudinal cohort studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available