1Research Department COC-CICO, Institución Universitaria Colegios de Colombia UNICOC, Bogotá, Colombia.
2Department of Endodontics Universidad cooperativa de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
3Department of Periodontics, Universidad Antonio Nariño, Bogotá, Colombia.
4Department of Surgery and Urology, School of Medicine Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia.
5Centro de Investigaciones Odontologicas, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Colombia.
Copyright © 2022. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Population: CS patients.
Intervention: History of conventional root canal treatment (RCT).
Comparison: Non-CS patients.
Outcome: Prevalence of post-endodontic apical periodontitis.
1. (Smokers OR no smokers AND smoking OR tobacco)
2. (Endodontics OR endodontic risk factors AND periodontitis OR pulpal disease AND apical periodontitis AND apical condition AND root canal therapy OR apical periodontitis OR root canal treatment) NOT implants
1. (smokers OR no AND smokers AND smoking OR tobacco)
2. (endodontics OR endodontic AND risk AND factors AND periodontitis OR pulpal AND disease AND apical AND periodontitis AND apical AND condition AND root AND canal AND therapy OR apical AND periodontitis OR root AND canal AND treatment) not AND implants
1. TS=(Smokers OR no smokers AND smoking OR tobacco)
2. TS=(Endodontics OR endodontic risk factors AND periodontitis OR pulpal disease AND apical periodontitis AND apical condition AND root canal therapy OR apical periodontitis
Article | Author, year, country | Sample (n) | Age | Sample characteristics (smoker and/or non-smoker) | Teeth (n) (smoker and/or non-smoker) | Periapical diagnosis | PAI | Main results | Statistical analysis | Confidence level | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Bergström et al. [21], 2004, Sweden | Subjects n = 247, male (n = 213), female (n = 34) | 20–65 | Current smokers (n = 81), former smokers (n = 63), non-smokers (n = 103) | On average for the total sample: 38.7 out of a maximum of 42 dental roots per person (i.e. 92%) were available for assessment. | Periapical radiographs | No | The mean numbers of periapical lesions per person related to endodontically treated teeth for current smokers: n = 0.86 mean; 95% CI, 0.5–1.2. Former smokers: n = 0.53 mean; 95% CI, 0.3–0.8. Non-smokers: n = 0.68 mean; 95% CI, 0.4–0.9. Total: n = 0.30 mean; 95% CI, 0.5–0.8. The smoking prevalence of individuals exhibiting one or more teeth with a periapical lesion: current smokers (56%), former smokers (57%), and non-smokers (46%) (p > 0.05). The prevalence of periapical lesions among individuals with RCT: current smokers (69%), former-smokers (74%), and non-smokers (85%) (p > 0.05). | Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric ANOVA, two-factor ANOVA, and Scheffé post hoc multiple comparisons test | p < 0.05 | It is concluded that these observations do not support the assumption that smoking is associated with apical periodontitis. Moreover, there was no statistically difference (p > 0.05) in terms of root-filled teeth with AP when comparing smokers vs non-smokers. |
2 | Segura-egea et al. [22], 2008, Spain | Subjects n = 180, male (n = 66, 36.7%), female (n = 114, 63.3%) | 37.1 ± 15.7 | Current smokers (n = 109, 61%) and non-smokers (n = 71, 39%) | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 2,722 and 1,731 teeth in non-smokers. The average number of teeth per patient: smokers (n = 25.0 ± 3.8), non-smoker (n = 24.4 ± 4.5) (p > 0.05). | Periapical radiographs | Yes | AP in one or more teeth in smokers (n = 81, 74%) and non-smokers (n = 29, 41%) (p < 0.01; OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.2–7.9). Among smokers, 45 root-filled teeth had AP, whereas in non-smokers 15 (OR non-smokers = 1.0, OR smokers = 1.5, p > 0.05). | Cohen’s Kappa test, ANOVA and logistic regression | p < 0.05 | Smoking was significantly associated with a higher frequency and prevalence of root canal treatment and apical periodontitis. However, there was no statistically difference (p > 0.05) in terms of root-filled teeth with AP when comparing smokers vs non-smokers. |
3 | Sopińska and Bołtacz-Rzepkowska [23], 2020, Poland | Subjects n = 703, male (n = 277, 39.4%), female (n = 426, 60.6%) | 18–91 | Non-smokers (n = 317), smokers (n = 386) | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 8,726 and 7,487 teeth in non-smokers. | Panoramic radiographs | No | Smokers presented a higher prevalence of teeth with AP than non-smokers (7.2% and 5.2% respectively, p < 0.0005). Among smokers, 352 root-filled teeth had AP, whereas in non-smokers 257 (χ2 test p = 0.451; Mantel-Haenszel test 0.760; common OR estimate 0.963; 95% CI, 0.783–1.184). | χ2 and the Mantel-Haenszel test | p > 0.05 | Smokers are a group facing an increased risk of AP. However, no difference was observed in the frequency of AP in the endodontically treated teeth in both groups (37.6% vs 35.8%) (p = 0.451). |
4 | Bahammam [24], 2012, Saudi Arabia | Subjects n = 98 male individuals | 20–60 | Non-smokers (n = 78), smokers (n = 20) | The average number of teeth per patient was 24.65 ± 3.28 and 24.58 ± 4.41 in smokers and non-smokes, respectively (p = 0.953). | Periapical radiographs | No | The prevalence of patients with AP was 8.59% in smoker and 6.18% in non-smokers. The frequency of patients having AP with RCT in smoker and in non-smokers was 5.73% and 5.12%, respectively (p = 0.195). | t-test | p < 0.05 | Results from this study do not favor the assumption that smoking is associated with AP. Likewise, there was no statistically difference (p > 0.05) in terms of root-filled teeth with AP when comparing smokers vs non-smokers. |
5 | Peršić Bukmir et al. [25], 2015, Croatia | Subjects n = 259, 82 male subjects (31.7%) and 177 female subjects (68.3%). | 40.3 ± 15.1 | Non-smokers (n = 151), smokers (n = 108) | The average number of teeth per patient was 22.9 ± 5.2 and 23.2 ± 4.9 in smokers and non-smokes, respectively (p = 0.636). | Panoramic radiographs and Periapical radiographs | Yes | Smokers had higher prevalence of teeth with AP than non-smokers (0.13 vs 0.10; p = 0.025). Among smokers, 67 patients (72.0%) had AP affecting at least one treated tooth, whereas in non-smokers, 93 patients (78.8%) had AP affecting at least one treated tooth (p = 0.328). Likewise, fractions of endodontically treated teeth with AP did not differ significantly between smokers vs non-smokers (mean, 0.06; SD, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.05–0.07; p = 0.832). | Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, t-test and χ2 test | p < 0.05 | Smokers will on average have two teeth with AP more than non-smokers, thus supporting the hypothesis that smoking influences the periapical status of teeth. However, no difference was observed in the prevalence of AP in the endodontically treated teeth when comparing smokers vs non-smokers (72.0% and 78.8% respectively) (p = 0.328). |
6 | Segura-egea et al. [26], 2011, Spain | Subjects n = 100, men (n = 53, 53%) women (n = 47, 47%) | 58.7 ± 9.6 | 50 smokers and 50 non-smokers | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 1,039 and 1,124 teeth in non-smokers. The average number of teeth per patient: smokers (n = 20.8 ± 4.0), non-smokers (n = 22.3 ± 4.3) (p > 0.05). | Periapical radiographs | Yes | AP in one or more teeth in smokers (n = 46, 92%) and non-smokers (n = 22, 44%) (p < 0.01; OR, 14.6; 95% CI: 4.6–46.9). Among smokers, 24 root-filled teeth had AP whereas in non-smokers, 9 root-filled teeth exhibited AP (p > 0.05). | Student t-test, logistic regression and χ2 test | p < 0.05 | The prevalence of apical periodontitis and root canal treatment was significantly higher in hypertensive smoking patients compared to non-smokers. However, there was no statistically difference (p > 0.05) in terms of root-filled teeth with AP when comparing smokers vs non-smokers. |
Study | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Conclusion | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cross-sectional studies | |||||
Bergström et al. [21], 2004 | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Segura-Egea et al. [22], 2008 | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Sopińska and Bołtacz-Rzepkowska [23], 2020 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | LOW RISK | |
Bahammam [24], 2012 | ★ | - | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Peršić Bukmir et al. [25], 2016 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | LOW RISK | |
Segura-Egea et al. [26], 2011 | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK |
Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization: Ríos-Osorio N.
Data curation: Jiménez-Peña O, Muñoz-Alvear HD.
Formal analysis: García-Perdomo HA.
Investigation: Quijano S, Caviedes-Bucheli J.
Methodology: Muñoz-Alvear HD, Jiménez- Peña O, Caviedes-Bucheli J.
Project administration: Ríos-Osorio N.
Software: Muñoz-Alvear HD.
Supervision: Jiménez-Castellanos FA.
Validation: Quijano S, Caviedes-Bucheli J.
Visualization: Quijano S.
Writing - original draft: Ríos-Osorio N.
Writing - review & editing: Ríos-Osorio N, Jiménez-Castellanos FA, García-Perdomo HA.
Article | Author, year, country | Sample (n) | Age | Sample characteristics (smoker and/or non-smoker) | Teeth (n) (smoker and/or non-smoker) | Periapical diagnosis | PAI | Main results | Statistical analysis | Confidence level | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Bergström et al. [21], 2004, Sweden | Subjects n = 247, male (n = 213), female (n = 34) | 20–65 | Current smokers (n = 81), former smokers (n = 63), non-smokers (n = 103) | On average for the total sample: 38.7 out of a maximum of 42 dental roots per person (i.e. 92%) were available for assessment. | Periapical radiographs | No | The mean numbers of periapical lesions per person related to endodontically treated teeth for current smokers: n = 0.86 mean; 95% CI, 0.5–1.2. Former smokers: n = 0.53 mean; 95% CI, 0.3–0.8. Non-smokers: n = 0.68 mean; 95% CI, 0.4–0.9. Total: n = 0.30 mean; 95% CI, 0.5–0.8. The smoking prevalence of individuals exhibiting one or more teeth with a periapical lesion: current smokers (56%), former smokers (57%), and non-smokers (46%) (p > 0.05). The prevalence of periapical lesions among individuals with RCT: current smokers (69%), former-smokers (74%), and non-smokers (85%) (p > 0.05). | Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric ANOVA, two-factor ANOVA, and Scheffé post hoc multiple comparisons test | p < 0.05 | It is concluded that these observations do not support the assumption that smoking is associated with apical periodontitis. Moreover, there was no statistically difference (p > 0.05) in terms of root-filled teeth with AP when comparing smokers vs non-smokers. |
2 | Segura-egea et al. [22], 2008, Spain | Subjects n = 180, male (n = 66, 36.7%), female (n = 114, 63.3%) | 37.1 ± 15.7 | Current smokers (n = 109, 61%) and non-smokers (n = 71, 39%) | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 2,722 and 1,731 teeth in non-smokers. The average number of teeth per patient: smokers (n = 25.0 ± 3.8), non-smoker (n = 24.4 ± 4.5) (p > 0.05). | Periapical radiographs | Yes | AP in one or more teeth in smokers (n = 81, 74%) and non-smokers (n = 29, 41%) (p < 0.01; OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.2–7.9). Among smokers, 45 root-filled teeth had AP, whereas in non-smokers 15 (OR non-smokers = 1.0, OR smokers = 1.5, p > 0.05). | Cohen’s Kappa test, ANOVA and logistic regression | p < 0.05 | Smoking was significantly associated with a higher frequency and prevalence of root canal treatment and apical periodontitis. However, there was no statistically difference (p > 0.05) in terms of root-filled teeth with AP when comparing smokers vs non-smokers. |
3 | Sopińska and Bołtacz-Rzepkowska [23], 2020, Poland | Subjects n = 703, male (n = 277, 39.4%), female (n = 426, 60.6%) | 18–91 | Non-smokers (n = 317), smokers (n = 386) | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 8,726 and 7,487 teeth in non-smokers. | Panoramic radiographs | No | Smokers presented a higher prevalence of teeth with AP than non-smokers (7.2% and 5.2% respectively, p < 0.0005). Among smokers, 352 root-filled teeth had AP, whereas in non-smokers 257 (χ2 test p = 0.451; Mantel-Haenszel test 0.760; common OR estimate 0.963; 95% CI, 0.783–1.184). | χ2 and the Mantel-Haenszel test | p > 0.05 | Smokers are a group facing an increased risk of AP. However, no difference was observed in the frequency of AP in the endodontically treated teeth in both groups (37.6% vs 35.8%) (p = 0.451). |
4 | Bahammam [24], 2012, Saudi Arabia | Subjects n = 98 male individuals | 20–60 | Non-smokers (n = 78), smokers (n = 20) | The average number of teeth per patient was 24.65 ± 3.28 and 24.58 ± 4.41 in smokers and non-smokes, respectively (p = 0.953). | Periapical radiographs | No | The prevalence of patients with AP was 8.59% in smoker and 6.18% in non-smokers. The frequency of patients having AP with RCT in smoker and in non-smokers was 5.73% and 5.12%, respectively (p = 0.195). | t-test | p < 0.05 | Results from this study do not favor the assumption that smoking is associated with AP. Likewise, there was no statistically difference (p > 0.05) in terms of root-filled teeth with AP when comparing smokers vs non-smokers. |
5 | Peršić Bukmir et al. [25], 2015, Croatia | Subjects n = 259, 82 male subjects (31.7%) and 177 female subjects (68.3%). | 40.3 ± 15.1 | Non-smokers (n = 151), smokers (n = 108) | The average number of teeth per patient was 22.9 ± 5.2 and 23.2 ± 4.9 in smokers and non-smokes, respectively (p = 0.636). | Panoramic radiographs and Periapical radiographs | Yes | Smokers had higher prevalence of teeth with AP than non-smokers (0.13 vs 0.10; p = 0.025). Among smokers, 67 patients (72.0%) had AP affecting at least one treated tooth, whereas in non-smokers, 93 patients (78.8%) had AP affecting at least one treated tooth (p = 0.328). Likewise, fractions of endodontically treated teeth with AP did not differ significantly between smokers vs non-smokers (mean, 0.06; SD, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.05–0.07; p = 0.832). | Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, t-test and χ2 test | p < 0.05 | Smokers will on average have two teeth with AP more than non-smokers, thus supporting the hypothesis that smoking influences the periapical status of teeth. However, no difference was observed in the prevalence of AP in the endodontically treated teeth when comparing smokers vs non-smokers (72.0% and 78.8% respectively) (p = 0.328). |
6 | Segura-egea et al. [26], 2011, Spain | Subjects n = 100, men (n = 53, 53%) women (n = 47, 47%) | 58.7 ± 9.6 | 50 smokers and 50 non-smokers | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 1,039 and 1,124 teeth in non-smokers. The average number of teeth per patient: smokers (n = 20.8 ± 4.0), non-smokers (n = 22.3 ± 4.3) (p > 0.05). | Periapical radiographs | Yes | AP in one or more teeth in smokers (n = 46, 92%) and non-smokers (n = 22, 44%) (p < 0.01; OR, 14.6; 95% CI: 4.6–46.9). Among smokers, 24 root-filled teeth had AP whereas in non-smokers, 9 root-filled teeth exhibited AP (p > 0.05). | Student t-test, logistic regression and χ2 test | p < 0.05 | The prevalence of apical periodontitis and root canal treatment was significantly higher in hypertensive smoking patients compared to non-smokers. However, there was no statistically difference (p > 0.05) in terms of root-filled teeth with AP when comparing smokers vs non-smokers. |
Study | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Conclusion | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cross-sectional studies | |||||
Bergström et al. [21], 2004 | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Segura-Egea et al. [22], 2008 | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Sopińska and Bołtacz-Rzepkowska [23], 2020 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | LOW RISK | |
Bahammam [24], 2012 | ★ | - | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Peršić Bukmir et al. [25], 2016 | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | LOW RISK | |
Segura-Egea et al. [26], 2011 | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK |
Article | Author, year, country | Sample ( | Age | Sample characteristics (smoker and/or non-smoker) | Teeth ( | Periapical diagnosis | PAI | Main results | Statistical analysis | Confidence level | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Bergström | Subjects | 20–65 | Current smokers ( | On average for the total sample: 38.7 out of a maximum of 42 dental roots per person (i.e. 92%) were available for assessment. | Periapical radiographs | No | The mean numbers of periapical lesions per person related to endodontically treated teeth for current smokers: | Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric ANOVA, two-factor ANOVA, and Scheffé | It is concluded that these observations do not support the assumption that smoking is associated with apical periodontitis. Moreover, there was no statistically difference ( | |
2 | Segura-egea | Subjects | 37.1 ± 15.7 | Current smokers ( | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 2,722 and 1,731 teeth in non-smokers. The average number of teeth per patient: smokers ( | Periapical radiographs | Yes | AP in one or more teeth in smokers ( | Cohen’s Kappa test, ANOVA and logistic regression | Smoking was significantly associated with a higher frequency and prevalence of root canal treatment and apical periodontitis. However, there was no statistically difference ( | |
3 | Sopińska and Bołtacz-Rzepkowska [ | Subjects | 18–91 | Non-smokers ( | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 8,726 and 7,487 teeth in non-smokers. | Panoramic radiographs | No | Smokers presented a higher prevalence of teeth with AP than non-smokers (7.2% and 5.2% respectively, | χ2 and the Mantel-Haenszel test | Smokers are a group facing an increased risk of AP. However, no difference was observed in the frequency of AP in the endodontically treated teeth in both groups (37.6% | |
4 | Bahammam [ | Subjects | 20–60 | Non-smokers ( | The average number of teeth per patient was 24.65 ± 3.28 and 24.58 ± 4.41 in smokers and non-smokes, respectively ( | Periapical radiographs | No | The prevalence of patients with AP was 8.59% in smoker and 6.18% in non-smokers. The frequency of patients having AP with RCT in smoker and in non-smokers was 5.73% and 5.12%, respectively ( | Results from this study do not favor the assumption that smoking is associated with AP. Likewise, there was no statistically difference ( | ||
5 | Peršić Bukmir | Subjects | 40.3 ± 15.1 | Non-smokers ( | The average number of teeth per patient was 22.9 ± 5.2 and 23.2 ± 4.9 in smokers and non-smokes, respectively ( | Panoramic radiographs and Periapical radiographs | Yes | Smokers had higher prevalence of teeth with AP than non-smokers (0.13 | Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, | Smokers will on average have two teeth with AP more than non-smokers, thus supporting the hypothesis that smoking influences the periapical status of teeth. However, no difference was observed in the prevalence of AP in the endodontically treated teeth when comparing smokers | |
6 | Segura-egea | Subjects | 58.7 ± 9.6 | 50 smokers and 50 non-smokers | Total number of teeth examined in smokers was 1,039 and 1,124 teeth in non-smokers. The average number of teeth per patient: smokers ( | Periapical radiographs | Yes | AP in one or more teeth in smokers ( | Student | The prevalence of apical periodontitis and root canal treatment was significantly higher in hypertensive smoking patients compared to non-smokers. However, there was no statistically difference ( |
AP, apical periodontitis; PAI, periapical index; CI, Confidence interval; RCT, root canal treatment; ANOVA, analysis of variance; OR, odds ratio; SD, standard deviation.
Study | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Conclusion | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Bergström | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Segura-Egea | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Sopińska and Bołtacz-Rzepkowska [ | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | LOW RISK | |
Bahammam [ | ★ | - | ★★★ | HIGH RISK | |
Peršić Bukmir | ★★ | ★★ | ★★★ | LOW RISK | |
Segura-Egea | - | ★★ | ★★★ | HIGH RISK |
AP, apical periodontitis; PAI, periapical index; CI, Confidence interval; RCT, root canal treatment; ANOVA, analysis of variance; OR, odds ratio; SD, standard deviation.