[Headlines Only] [Top Stories Only]
Categories
· Health/Science
· International
· Smokeless
non-USA, by Country
· Europe
· Usa

Systematic review of the relation between smokeless tobacco and non-neoplastic oral diseases in Europe and the United States 

BMC Oral Health 2008, 8:13doi:10.1186/1472-6831-8-13
Jump to full article: BioMed Central (uk), 2008-05-01
Author: Gerd Kallischnigg , Rolf Weitkunat and Peter N Lee

Intro:

Results

Oral mucosal lesions: Thirty-three epidemiological studies consistently show a strong dose-related effect of current snuff on oral mucosal lesion prevalence. In Scandinavia, users have a near 100% prevalence of a characteristic "snuff-induced lesion", but prevalence of the varied lesions reported in the USA is lower. Associations with chewing tobacco are weaker. The lack of clear association with former use suggests reversibility following cessation, consistent with experimental studies showing rapid lesion regression on quitting. Periodontal and gingival diseases: Two of four studies report a significant association of snuff with attachment loss and four out of eight with gingival recession. . . .

How smokeless tobacco contributes to non-neoplastic oral diseases is unclear. It certainly increases risk of oral mucosal lesions, but reviewers disagree as to other conditions. In some areas, especially South-East Asia, risk is difficult to quantify due to the many products, compositions (including non-tobacco ingredients), and usage practices involved. This review considers studies from Europe (in practice mainly Scandinavia) and from the USA. . . .

Conclusions

This review confirms the strong association of current use of smokeless tobacco, particularly snuff, with prevalence of oral mucosal lesions. It provides suggestive evidence of an association of snuff use with gingival recession and attachment loss, and of chewing tobacco with dental caries. While smokeless tobacco clearly increases risk of oral mucosal lesions, interpretation for other endpoints is limited by study weaknesses, including poor confounding control.

Jump to full article »