4.5 Article

The Effect of Smoking on Periodontal Health of 15-to 16-Year-Old Adolescents

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 79, 期 11, 页码 2042-2047

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2008.080205

关键词

Adolescent; periodontal index; radiographs; smoking; toothbrushing

资金

  1. Helsinki University Central Hospital [TYH3245]
  2. City of Kotka
  3. Cultural Foundation of Kymenlaakso
  4. Yrjo Jahnsson Foundation
  5. Kymin Osakeyhtion 100-Vuotissaatio
  6. Finnish Dental Society Apollonia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Smoking is a severe risk factor for periodontal health in adults, but data on the effect of smoking on periodontal health in teenage populations are sparse. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of duration and quantity of smoking on periodontal health in teenagers and possible differences between genders. Methods: The oral health of 501 adolescents (15- to 16-year-old boys [n = 258] and girls [n = 2431) was examined. A structured questionnaire about self-reported smoking and health habits was filled out, and bitewing x-rays were taken. Clinical examinations included measuring periodontal indexes, such as visible plaque index, bleeding on probing, root calculus (RC), probing depth, and attachment loss. Results were analyzed by generalized linear logistic regression. Results: Twenty-five percent of boys and 27% of girls were smokers. The boys and girls who smoked had higher RC values than non-smokers (P<0.001). The adjusted scores for smoking boys and girls were 17.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.6 to 31.7) and 13.6 (95% CI: 5.5 to 29.7), respectively. The adjusted scores for non-smokers were 10.4 (95% CI: 5.7 to 18.3) and 7.7 (95% CI: 3.3 to 17.3), respectively. Smoking boys and girls also had more periodontal pockets >= 4 mm than non-smokers: the score for boys was 4.6 (95% CI: 2.2 to 9.1), and the score for girls was 5.4 (95% Cl: 1.1 to 23.2; P<0.001). Conclusion: Smoking significantly impaired periodontal health in teenagers. J Periodontol 2008; 79:2042-2047.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据