4.6 Article

Tobacco smoking and subgingival dental calculus

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 81-88

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00638.x

Keywords

calcification; dental calculus; periodontal disease; smoking; tobacco

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: A radiographic investigation into the relationship between tobacco smoking and subgingival dental calculus was conducted in an adult population, including 48 current smokers, 57 former smokers, and 125 non-smokers. Material and Methods: Assessment of subgingival calculus was based on a full set of radiographs. Mesial and distal root surfaces were assessed as to presence or absence of radiopaque deposits apical to the cemento-enamel junction. The severity of subgingival calculus deposition, labeled subgingival calculus load, was estimated from both the total number and the proportion of proximal sites affected. Results: The overall prevalence of individuals exhibiting at least one subgingival calculus positive site was 43%, ranging from 15% in age stratum 20-34 years to 72% in age stratum 50-69 years. The prevalence among current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers was 71%, 53%, and 28%, respectively. The differences between smoking groups were statistically significant (p<0.001). The mean subgingival calculus load of current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers was 3.4, 1.2, and 0.6 affected sites per person, respectively, or expressed as mean proportions, 6.2%, 2.4%, and 1.1%, respectively. The association between smoking and subgingival calculus load was statistically significant (p<0.001). The subgingival calculus load increased with increasing smoking exposure, suggesting a dose-response relationship. Conclusion: The present observations in dentally aware adults indicate a strong and independent impact of tobacco smoking on subgingival calculus deposition.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available