Affiliation:
1. Department of Prosthodontics, Semmelweis University , Budapest , Hungary
2. Centre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University , Budapest , Hungary
3. Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Semmelweis University , Budapest , Hungary
4. Institute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs , Pécs , Hungary
5. Institute of Pancreatic Diseases, Semmelweis University , Budapest , Hungary
6. Department of Oral Biology, Semmelweis University , Budapest , Hungary
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Smokers have a higher chance of developing peri-implant diseases and are therefore considered an at-risk population. Our aim was to compare peri-implant characteristics in users of electronic cigarettes (EC), waterpipes (WP), cigarettes (CS), smokeless tobacco (ST), and nonsmokers (nonusers of any nicotine and tobacco product; NS).
Aims and Methods
A systematic search of four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL) was performed until April 2023, restricted to English language. Thirty-nine observational studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 32 studies were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Using a predesigned form, two researchers independently collected data about marginal bone loss (MBL), probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index, bleeding on probing, modified plaque index, probing pocket depth > 4 mm (PPD > 4), gingival index, peri-implant sulcular fluid volume, and TNF-α and IL-1β levels. QUIPS and CINeMA were used to evaluate the risk of bias and certainty of evidence.
Results
Nonsmokers had the smallest MBL. Most nicotine-containing product users had significantly higher MBL (CS, mean difference [MD]: 1.34 credible interval [CrI]: 0.85, 1.79; WP, MD: 1.58 CrI: 0.84, 2.35; ST, MD: 2.53, CrI: 1.20, 3.87) than NS. Electronic cigarettes did not show significant difference compared to NS (MD: 0.52 CrI: −0.33, 1.36). In secondary outcomes, NS were ranked in first place. Subset analysis based on smoking habit, implant duration, and maintenance control revealed no differences in ranking probability.
Conclusions
Most nicotine-containing product users presented worse peri-implant parameters compared to NS, while EC users did not show significant differences to NS in many outcomes.
Implications
Alternative nicotine-containing products are gaining popularity and are often considered less harmful by the general public compared to traditional cigarettes. This is the first network meta-analysis comparing users of four nicotine-containing products and NS. This study shows that CS, WP, and ST have a detrimental effect on the overall health of peri-implant tissues. EC users also presented inferior parameters compared to NS; however, the difference was not significant in many outcomes. It is essential to educate patients who are using nicotine-containing products, and to provide proper maintenance and appropriate cessation support. Well-designed multiarmed studies are needed for direct comparison of different products, including heated tobacco products. Greater transparency of confounding factors is needed regarding smoking habit and oral hygiene.
Funder
Centre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)