3.8 Article

Smoking and periodontal disease severity, probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing

Journal

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/jncd.jncd_23_21

Keywords

Bleeding on probing; periodontal disease; probing pocket depth; smoking

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that compared to non-smokers, smokers had a lower percentage of sites with bleeding on probing. Additionally, smokers had more pockets with increased probing pocket depth and more sites with probing pocket depth of ≥5 mm compared to nonsmokers. From the results, it can be concluded that smoking is associated with more severe periodontal attachment and bone loss and deeper periodontal pockets.
Background and Objective: The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether severity of disease process differed between smokers and nonsmokers and to study characteristic differences in pattern of periodontal disease in smokers in a group of known chronic periodontitis patients. Materials and Methods: The study included 150 individuals in an age range of 35-60 years wherein periodontal evaluation including probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) was performed using Williams's periodontal probe. For both the parameters (PPD and BOP), mean scores were calculated from different quadrants of the oral cavity while the results obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The mean percentage of sites that presented with BOP was higher for nonsmokers compared with smokers. Furthermore, smokers had more number of pockets and pockets with increased PPD. On analysis of buccal and lingual sides, also, it was observed that smokers had more number of sites with PPD of & GE;5 mm than nonsmokers. Conclusion: From the results, it could be concluded that smoking is associated with more severe periodontal attachment and bone loss and deeper periodontal pockets.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available