**The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status**

Jindra Smejkalova, Vimal Jacob, Lenka Hodacova, Zdenek Fiala, Radovan Slezak and Sajith Vellappally *Charles University in Prague, Medical Faculty in Hradec Kralove Czech Republic* 

#### **1. Introduction**

248 Oral Health Care – Pediatric, Research, Epidemiology and Clinical Practices

Gleicher, N. (1998). *Principles & Practice of Medical Therapy in Pregnancy*. USA: Plenum

Hajikazemi E,Oskouie F, Hossain Mohseny SH, Nikpour S,Haghany H.(2008).The

Jones, H., Mason, j. & David, K. (1998). *Oral Manifestation of systematic Disease*. philadelphia:

Jeffcoat, A. (2000). Research presented today provides further evidence on the importance of

Lopez, N. (2005). Periodontal therapy protects preterm birth. *Journal of periodontology,* 76,

Ogunboded, E. (1996). Socio economic factors and dental health in an Obstetric Population.

World Health Organization2011).Risks to oral health and intervention. Diet & nutrition.

World Health Organization. (2006). Global consultation on oral health Through Fluoride.

Yiping W et al. (2004). Fusobacterium nucleatum induces premature and term stillbirths in

URL:*www.who.int/oral\_health/event/Glob\_consultation en.index.html*

WHO in collaboration with the World Dental Federation and The International

pregnant mice: Implication of oral bacteria in preterm birth, *journal of Infection and* 

Mathewson,RJ;et al.(1994). Fundamental of dentistry for children. London:quintessence. Ogunboded, E. (1996). Socio economic factors and dental health in an Obstetric Population.

Jahonson, A. (1985). Dental care during pregnancy. *Nursing time,* 11. 30-31.

good oral health in pregnant women. URL:*www.perio.org* 

Marjorio, s. (2003). Dental procedure may reduce risk of premature birth.

Randy, M. (2005). Health-study: X-Ray may harm fetus. URL:*Wsbtv.com*

*West African Journal of medicine*, 15, 158-62.

URL*: www.who.int/oral health/action/risk/en*.

Relationship between Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Pregnant Women about Oral and Dental Care *European Journal of Scientific Research,* Vol.24 No.4 pp.556-562.

Company.

WB.sunders.

2144-53.

URL: *www.perio.org* 

*Journal of medicine*, 15, 158-62.

Association for Dental Research.

*Immunity,* 72(4): 2272-2279.

Tobacco is one of the major toxic agents in our civilization. It's use is considered as one of the most common cause of mortality and morbidity in both developed and developing countries in present times. Of 260 million deaths which occurred in the developing world between 1950 and 2000, it is estimated that 50 million were due to smoking. Globally, smoking related mortality is set to rise from 3 million annually (1995 estimate) to 10 million annually by 2030, with 70 % of these deaths occurring in developing countries (Fagerström, 2002). Since 1970, smoking prevalence among men has slightly decreased, but among women, teenagers and children, smoking has increased dramatically. Sixty percent of children are exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) at their homes (Mackay & Amos, 2003).

Tobacco is one of the most important risk factor for oral diseases including oral cancer, oral mucosal lesions, periodontal diseases, wound healing failure, dental implants failure, gingival inflammation, acute necrotizing ulcerative gingivitis and apthous ulcers (Vellappally et al., 2007; Jacob et al., 2007). There is substantial evidence suggesting that the risk of oral diseases increase with frequent use of tobacco and that quitting smoking results in reduced risk (Winn, 2001).

#### **1.1 Smoking and dental caries**

Smoking and its relation to dental caries is a subject of many opinions. From early reports in literature and in accordance with common belief smoking was thought to actually help to reduce dental caries (Hart, 1899; Gibbs, 1952). Schmidt, in 1951, reported that the increase in tobacco smoking was followed by a decrease in caries rate. Smoking increases thiocyanate level in saliva. Thiocyanate, a normal constituent of saliva, was found to have caries inhibiting effect (Reibel, 2003; Johnson & Bain, 2000). On the other hand, studies showed that smoking is associated with lower salivary cystatin activity and output of cystatin C is also reduced during gingival inflammation. Cystatins are thought to contribute to maintaining oral health by inhibiting certain proteolytic enzymes (Lie et al., 2001). In addition, studies have confirmed by earlier results that there were no significant differences in salivary flow rates between smokers and non-smokers (Reibel, 2003). The decreased buffering effect of smoker's saliva and the higher number of lactobacilli and *S. mutans group*

The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 251

studies and findings point to the conjecture that smoking has some influence in high caries incidence. Further studies, clinical trials and experiments are needed to confirm the

The manifestation and progression of periodontitis, a multifactorial disease with microbial dental plaque as the initiator, is influenced by a variety of determinants and factors. They include subject characteristics, social and behavioral factors, systemic factors, genetic factors, tooth-related factors, microbial composition of dental plaque and other emerging factors (Nunn, 2003). Cigarette smoking is a significant risk factor for periodontal disease (Tanner, 2005), demonstrated by an increased loss of attachment (Hymann & Reid, 2003; Amarasena et al., 2003; Razali et al., 2005), development and progression of periodontal inflammation (James et al., 1999; Genco, 1996) and increased gingival recession (Müller et al., 2002). It has been estimated that smoking accounts for half of all periodontal diseases. There is epidemiological evidence which shows that cigarette smoking is a stronger risk factor for the presence of periodontitis compared to the presence of certain suspected periodontal pathogens (Darby et al., 2005). The number of cigarettes smoked per day is a major risk determining factor, doubling the risk for those in the lowest consumption category and increasing it six fold in the subgroup smoking more than thirty cigarettes per day (Tomar & Asma, 2000; Winn, 2001). Former smokers have lower rates of periodontitis than present smokers (Alabandar et al., 2000; Calsina et al., 2002; Johnson & Hill, 2004; Krejci & Bissada, 1999; Spickerman et al., 2003; Van Winkelhoff et al., 2001). Longitudinal studies indicate that periodontal disease may progress faster in smokers in comparison to non-smokers (Beck et al., 1997; Winn, 2001). Further research on this topic is necessary to expand the spectrum of

The Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) was developed for the 'Joint Working Committee' of the World Health Organization (WHO) and Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) by Jukka Ainamo, David Barmes, George Beagrie, Terry Cutress, Jean Martin, and Jennifer Sandro-Infirri in 1982. The CPITN procedure is recommended for epidemiological surveys of periodontal health. It uses clinical parameters and criteria relevant to planning and prevention of periodontal diseases and it records the common treatable conditions namely periodontal pockets, gingival inflammation and dental calculus (Ainamo & Ainamo, 1994). The CPITN is not intended as a comprehensive assessment of total past and present periodontal disease experience and it does not record irreversible changes such as gingival recession or other deviations from periodontal health such as tooth mobility or loss of periodontal attachment (Peter, 1999). Association between cigarette smoking and various oral diseases such as leukoplakia and oral cancers has been well documented but the role of cigarette smoking in the causation of periodontitis, however has not been widely investigated in the Czech Republic. In this study, the CPITN index was used to evaluate the influence of cigarette smoking on

The aim of the study was to evaluate the different approach of smokers and non-smokers to the oral health and to monitor the influence of smoking habits on the oral health, namely on

independent effect of smoking as one of the causes of dental caries.

knowledge acquired till date and to apply it clinically.

periodontitis.

**2. Aim of the study** 

the periodontium and the teeth.

**1.2 Smoking and periodontitis** 

may indicate an increased susceptibility to caries (Schmidt, 1951; Kassirer, 1994). To date, several investigators have discovered a correlation between an increased smoking level and dental caries (Axelsson et al., 1998; Bruno-Ambrosius et al., 2005). For example, in 1952, Ludwick and Massler reported that individuals who smoked more than 15 cigarettes daily had significantly higher number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth. In 1971, Ainamo found that increased smoking results in significantly high number of decayed surfaces per dentition. In 1990, Zitterbart confirmed an association between smoking and the prevalence of dental caries in adult males. Smokers had a significantly higher DMFT (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth) score, untreated decayed surfaces, and missing surfaces. More cigarettes consumed per day resulted in more missing tooth surfaces in a smoker's mouth (Zitterbart et al., 1990). Statistical analyses from a study in Sweden in 1991 showed that smoking, as a habit and an increased number of cigarettes smoked per day, are positively correlated with the increased number of decayed, missing and filled teeth and number of initially decayed proximal surfaces (Hirsch et al., 1991). Even though studies did not establish a causative relationship, the recent study done on American female population in 2006, showed a correlation between cigarette smoking and the presence of dental caries (Heng et al., 2006).

Most of the studies mentioned above have taken into consideration other contributing factors to dental caries development, such as age, tobacco habits other than smoking, oral hygiene habits, eating habits, preventive visits to dentist (dental recalls) and overall health standards. Therefore elucidating the exact strength of dental caries in relation to smoking is difficult to identify.

Association between smoking and dental caries is well documented in older age groups (Locker, 1992; Jette et al., 1993). Among the middle-age (Axelsson et al., 1998) or young adults (Sgan-Cohen et al., 2000) results are inconsistent. Non-smokers reported more frequent healthy oral health behavior than did daily smokers (Telivuo et al., 1995). Studies indicate that smokers not only had bad oral hygiene and less sophisticated outlook on health, but also had different eating habits, presumably consuming higher amount of sugar containing products like soft drinks and snacks (Axelsson et al., 1998; Hirsch et al., 1991). Daily smoking was associated with increased use of sugar in tea and coffee, and with more frequent alcohol consumption (Telivuo et al., 1995). It was also found that smokers have poorer brushing habits than non-smokers (Ainamo, 1971; Kelbauskas et al., 2005; Macgregor, 1985). Also current smokers were less likely to report regular preventive visits to dentists and were reluctant to use accessory dental aids such as dental floss (Locker, 1992).

In natural tobacco, sugar can be present in a level up to 20 %wt. In addition, various caries promoting factors such as sugars and sweeteners are added intentionally during tobacco manufacturing process (Talhout et al., 2006). Sugars used as cigarette additive include glucose, fructose, invert sugar (glucose/fructose mixture) and sucrose. In addition, many tobacco additives contain high amount of sugars, for example fruit juices, honey, molasses extracts, cones, maple syrup and caramel. The added sugars are usually reported to serve as flavor/casing and humectants. However, sugars also promote tobacco smoking, because they generate acids that neutralize the harsh taste and throat impact of tobacco smoke. Moreover, the sweet taste and the agreeable smell of caramelized sugar flavors are appreciated in particular by starting adolescent smokers (Talhout et al., 2006).

All the findings above can be argued for increased dental caries in smokers. Though a direct etiological relation is still lacking between smoking and dental caries, the above-mentioned studies and findings point to the conjecture that smoking has some influence in high caries incidence. Further studies, clinical trials and experiments are needed to confirm the independent effect of smoking as one of the causes of dental caries.

#### **1.2 Smoking and periodontitis**

250 Oral Health Care – Pediatric, Research, Epidemiology and Clinical Practices

may indicate an increased susceptibility to caries (Schmidt, 1951; Kassirer, 1994). To date, several investigators have discovered a correlation between an increased smoking level and dental caries (Axelsson et al., 1998; Bruno-Ambrosius et al., 2005). For example, in 1952, Ludwick and Massler reported that individuals who smoked more than 15 cigarettes daily had significantly higher number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth. In 1971, Ainamo found that increased smoking results in significantly high number of decayed surfaces per dentition. In 1990, Zitterbart confirmed an association between smoking and the prevalence of dental caries in adult males. Smokers had a significantly higher DMFT (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth) score, untreated decayed surfaces, and missing surfaces. More cigarettes consumed per day resulted in more missing tooth surfaces in a smoker's mouth (Zitterbart et al., 1990). Statistical analyses from a study in Sweden in 1991 showed that smoking, as a habit and an increased number of cigarettes smoked per day, are positively correlated with the increased number of decayed, missing and filled teeth and number of initially decayed proximal surfaces (Hirsch et al., 1991). Even though studies did not establish a causative relationship, the recent study done on American female population in 2006, showed a correlation between cigarette smoking and the presence of dental caries (Heng et al.,

Most of the studies mentioned above have taken into consideration other contributing factors to dental caries development, such as age, tobacco habits other than smoking, oral hygiene habits, eating habits, preventive visits to dentist (dental recalls) and overall health standards. Therefore elucidating the exact strength of dental caries in relation to smoking is

Association between smoking and dental caries is well documented in older age groups (Locker, 1992; Jette et al., 1993). Among the middle-age (Axelsson et al., 1998) or young adults (Sgan-Cohen et al., 2000) results are inconsistent. Non-smokers reported more frequent healthy oral health behavior than did daily smokers (Telivuo et al., 1995). Studies indicate that smokers not only had bad oral hygiene and less sophisticated outlook on health, but also had different eating habits, presumably consuming higher amount of sugar containing products like soft drinks and snacks (Axelsson et al., 1998; Hirsch et al., 1991). Daily smoking was associated with increased use of sugar in tea and coffee, and with more frequent alcohol consumption (Telivuo et al., 1995). It was also found that smokers have poorer brushing habits than non-smokers (Ainamo, 1971; Kelbauskas et al., 2005; Macgregor, 1985). Also current smokers were less likely to report regular preventive visits to dentists and

In natural tobacco, sugar can be present in a level up to 20 %wt. In addition, various caries promoting factors such as sugars and sweeteners are added intentionally during tobacco manufacturing process (Talhout et al., 2006). Sugars used as cigarette additive include glucose, fructose, invert sugar (glucose/fructose mixture) and sucrose. In addition, many tobacco additives contain high amount of sugars, for example fruit juices, honey, molasses extracts, cones, maple syrup and caramel. The added sugars are usually reported to serve as flavor/casing and humectants. However, sugars also promote tobacco smoking, because they generate acids that neutralize the harsh taste and throat impact of tobacco smoke. Moreover, the sweet taste and the agreeable smell of caramelized sugar flavors are

All the findings above can be argued for increased dental caries in smokers. Though a direct etiological relation is still lacking between smoking and dental caries, the above-mentioned

were reluctant to use accessory dental aids such as dental floss (Locker, 1992).

appreciated in particular by starting adolescent smokers (Talhout et al., 2006).

2006).

difficult to identify.

The manifestation and progression of periodontitis, a multifactorial disease with microbial dental plaque as the initiator, is influenced by a variety of determinants and factors. They include subject characteristics, social and behavioral factors, systemic factors, genetic factors, tooth-related factors, microbial composition of dental plaque and other emerging factors (Nunn, 2003). Cigarette smoking is a significant risk factor for periodontal disease (Tanner, 2005), demonstrated by an increased loss of attachment (Hymann & Reid, 2003; Amarasena et al., 2003; Razali et al., 2005), development and progression of periodontal inflammation (James et al., 1999; Genco, 1996) and increased gingival recession (Müller et al., 2002). It has been estimated that smoking accounts for half of all periodontal diseases. There is epidemiological evidence which shows that cigarette smoking is a stronger risk factor for the presence of periodontitis compared to the presence of certain suspected periodontal pathogens (Darby et al., 2005). The number of cigarettes smoked per day is a major risk determining factor, doubling the risk for those in the lowest consumption category and increasing it six fold in the subgroup smoking more than thirty cigarettes per day (Tomar & Asma, 2000; Winn, 2001). Former smokers have lower rates of periodontitis than present smokers (Alabandar et al., 2000; Calsina et al., 2002; Johnson & Hill, 2004; Krejci & Bissada, 1999; Spickerman et al., 2003; Van Winkelhoff et al., 2001). Longitudinal studies indicate that periodontal disease may progress faster in smokers in comparison to non-smokers (Beck et al., 1997; Winn, 2001). Further research on this topic is necessary to expand the spectrum of knowledge acquired till date and to apply it clinically.

The Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) was developed for the 'Joint Working Committee' of the World Health Organization (WHO) and Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) by Jukka Ainamo, David Barmes, George Beagrie, Terry Cutress, Jean Martin, and Jennifer Sandro-Infirri in 1982. The CPITN procedure is recommended for epidemiological surveys of periodontal health. It uses clinical parameters and criteria relevant to planning and prevention of periodontal diseases and it records the common treatable conditions namely periodontal pockets, gingival inflammation and dental calculus (Ainamo & Ainamo, 1994). The CPITN is not intended as a comprehensive assessment of total past and present periodontal disease experience and it does not record irreversible changes such as gingival recession or other deviations from periodontal health such as tooth mobility or loss of periodontal attachment (Peter, 1999). Association between cigarette smoking and various oral diseases such as leukoplakia and oral cancers has been well documented but the role of cigarette smoking in the causation of periodontitis, however has not been widely investigated in the Czech Republic. In this study, the CPITN index was used to evaluate the influence of cigarette smoking on periodontitis.

#### **2. Aim of the study**

The aim of the study was to evaluate the different approach of smokers and non-smokers to the oral health and to monitor the influence of smoking habits on the oral health, namely on the periodontium and the teeth.

The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 253

The periodontal status and treatment needs were evaluated by the help of CPITN index (Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Need) using the alternative of this index for individual use in adults where in the individual sextants, all teeth were examined with the exception of the third molars only. The CPI 0 means a healthy periodontium; CPI 1 indicates the gingival bleeding on gentle probing. The CPI 2 code is characterized by the presence of retention factors for plaque on the given tooth surface, most often by supragingival and/or subgingival calculus. Furthermore, CPI 3 coding indicated the presence of shallow pockets up to 4-5 mm, while CPI 4 indicated deep pockets 6 mm or more. In cases where there were two teeth only in some sextant, this was not taken into account (CPI X). Edentulous

To judge the impact of some selected variables such as smoking and certain "confounding" factors on the oral health, or the periodontium we used the treatment needs category of the CPITN index, which is related to the health care needs of inflamed periodontium. The value TN 0 (no treatment needed) corresponds with the CPI 0 in the given sextant. Classification CPI 1 conforms with TN I (oral hygiene necessary), whereas CPI 2 and CPI 3 correspond with TN II (oral hygiene needed, clearing up the calculus and other retention factors for plaque). CPI 4 is equal to TN III, which indicates the need for complex treatment (oral hygiene adjustment, clear out, need of tooth extraction and its replacement, need for surgical treatment of periodontal pockets, fixation of rather unstable teeth and other

The statistical evaluation was performed by using NCSS 2007 program. Descriptive statistics, χ2 test and logistic regression were done. To compare quantitative data (e.g. the age), Kruskal – Wallis analysis of dispersion with subsequent multiple matching (ANOVA) has been used. To evaluate qualitative data (e.g. the level of education) the X2 test of

For calculating the odds ratio for the selected variables (such as smoking, health status, education, frequency of teeth brushing, taking part in preventive check ups, food consumption even after the evening teeth brushing) we employed the method of multiple

During the 3 years period of data collection, we investigated 1 684 respondents. Participants were chosen randomly, with age above 69 years and less than 30 years being the only exclusion criterion. Our sample consisted of 792 males and 922 females with mean age of 44.2 years. There were 489 current smokers (369 regular and 120 occasional ones), 261

The level of respondents´ education in individual groups is illustrated in table 2. People with the basic education represented 28.3%, 7.9% were skilled with graduation exam, 41.6% passed the high school and 22.2% had the university education. Majority of the respondents with the basic education (44%) were found to be regular smokers. The highest number among university educated persons (28.2%) was identified as non-smokers. Quite surprisingly, we found relatively high prevalence of people with the high school education as regular and occasional smokers. These results are significantly different (p < 0.001).

independence in the contingent tables or Fisher's exact test was used.

**4.1 Results of questionnaire part of the study** 

former smokers and 934 non-smokers among them (table 1).

individuals were excluded from this study.

therapeutic modalities).

**3.3 Statistical analysis** 

logistic regression.

**4. Results** 

#### **3. Methods**

A cross-sectional population-based study was conducted in Czech Republic on a representative sample of 1684 respondents within the age group of 30 to 69 years. The project was conducted in cooperation with the Department of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine of Charles University in Prague, Medical Faculty in Hradec Kralove and Department of Dentistry of University Hospital in Hradec Kralove.

The study consisted of two parts - self reported questionnaire inquiry and clinical examination of oral health status including examination of teeth, periodontium and oral mucosa. Clinical investigations were performed by the uniformly instructed dentists. To limit the select bias caused by the fact that hospitalized patients usually do not represent the common population the respondents were selected from the patients hospitalized in the University Hospital as well as from patients of three practicing dentists.

#### **3.1 Questionnaire investigation**

All participants of this study were requested to answer the questionnaire which included questions concerning their personal history, economic status, educational qualification, profession and other important etiological factors of oral health, which can play a role of so called "confounding factors", like general health status, frequency of dental visit, brushing habits and dental aids used. We were also interested (though very tentatively) in the eating habits, the suitable and non suitable food. We inquired into the consumption of food with the risk for oral health (confections, sweet drinks), as well as of the food with the protective effect (fruit, vegetable as a sources of natural antioxidants). Respondents could make their choice among the answers: " regularly, daily, several times a week, several times a month, less frequently, never." Questions concerning alcohol consumption were also included in the questionnaire.

Detailed attention was given to smoking history. Regular smokers were defined as individuals who, at the time of examination, smoked at least one cigarette daily. Occasional smokers were individuals who smoked less than one cigarette per day. Former or exsmokers were defined as individuals who smoked at least 1 cigarette per day for 6 consecutive months and those who did not smoke at least for the past 6 months from the time of the study. Finally, non-smoker was a person, who never smoked for the period longer than 6 months. We also took into account the number of cigarettes smoked each day or week and the number of years of smoking.

The last section of the questionnaire was focused on a subjective assessment of the oral health by the respondents themselves and on their information level about the smoking harmfulness. The questionnaire clarity and the time necessary for filling it up were traced in the pilot study.

#### **3.2 Clinical investigation**

Dental status and periodontal status were assessed by DMF (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth) and CPITN (Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs) indices respectively, which at present are considered to be sufficiently valid for population studies.

The dentition was evaluated by recording the number of the decayed (D), missing (M) and filled (F) teeth, and number of decayed teeth with fillings (D+F) as well. The index DMF was then calculated as a sum of all these four quantities: DMF = D + M + F + (D + F). Thus, in the total sum each tooth was counted only once.

The periodontal status and treatment needs were evaluated by the help of CPITN index (Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Need) using the alternative of this index for individual use in adults where in the individual sextants, all teeth were examined with the exception of the third molars only. The CPI 0 means a healthy periodontium; CPI 1 indicates the gingival bleeding on gentle probing. The CPI 2 code is characterized by the presence of retention factors for plaque on the given tooth surface, most often by supragingival and/or subgingival calculus. Furthermore, CPI 3 coding indicated the presence of shallow pockets up to 4-5 mm, while CPI 4 indicated deep pockets 6 mm or more. In cases where there were two teeth only in some sextant, this was not taken into account (CPI X). Edentulous individuals were excluded from this study.

To judge the impact of some selected variables such as smoking and certain "confounding" factors on the oral health, or the periodontium we used the treatment needs category of the CPITN index, which is related to the health care needs of inflamed periodontium. The value TN 0 (no treatment needed) corresponds with the CPI 0 in the given sextant. Classification CPI 1 conforms with TN I (oral hygiene necessary), whereas CPI 2 and CPI 3 correspond with TN II (oral hygiene needed, clearing up the calculus and other retention factors for plaque). CPI 4 is equal to TN III, which indicates the need for complex treatment (oral hygiene adjustment, clear out, need of tooth extraction and its replacement, need for surgical treatment of periodontal pockets, fixation of rather unstable teeth and other therapeutic modalities).

#### **3.3 Statistical analysis**

252 Oral Health Care – Pediatric, Research, Epidemiology and Clinical Practices

A cross-sectional population-based study was conducted in Czech Republic on a representative sample of 1684 respondents within the age group of 30 to 69 years. The project was conducted in cooperation with the Department of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine of Charles University in Prague, Medical Faculty in Hradec Kralove and

The study consisted of two parts - self reported questionnaire inquiry and clinical examination of oral health status including examination of teeth, periodontium and oral mucosa. Clinical investigations were performed by the uniformly instructed dentists. To limit the select bias caused by the fact that hospitalized patients usually do not represent the common population the respondents were selected from the patients hospitalized in the

All participants of this study were requested to answer the questionnaire which included questions concerning their personal history, economic status, educational qualification, profession and other important etiological factors of oral health, which can play a role of so called "confounding factors", like general health status, frequency of dental visit, brushing habits and dental aids used. We were also interested (though very tentatively) in the eating habits, the suitable and non suitable food. We inquired into the consumption of food with the risk for oral health (confections, sweet drinks), as well as of the food with the protective effect (fruit, vegetable as a sources of natural antioxidants). Respondents could make their choice among the answers: " regularly, daily, several times a week, several times a month, less frequently, never." Questions concerning alcohol consumption were also included in

Detailed attention was given to smoking history. Regular smokers were defined as individuals who, at the time of examination, smoked at least one cigarette daily. Occasional smokers were individuals who smoked less than one cigarette per day. Former or exsmokers were defined as individuals who smoked at least 1 cigarette per day for 6 consecutive months and those who did not smoke at least for the past 6 months from the time of the study. Finally, non-smoker was a person, who never smoked for the period longer than 6 months. We also took into account the number of cigarettes smoked each day

The last section of the questionnaire was focused on a subjective assessment of the oral health by the respondents themselves and on their information level about the smoking harmfulness. The questionnaire clarity and the time necessary for filling it up were traced in

Dental status and periodontal status were assessed by DMF (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth) and CPITN (Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs) indices respectively,

The dentition was evaluated by recording the number of the decayed (D), missing (M) and filled (F) teeth, and number of decayed teeth with fillings (D+F) as well. The index DMF was then calculated as a sum of all these four quantities: DMF = D + M + F + (D + F). Thus, in the

which at present are considered to be sufficiently valid for population studies.

Department of Dentistry of University Hospital in Hradec Kralove.

University Hospital as well as from patients of three practicing dentists.

**3. Methods** 

**3.1 Questionnaire investigation** 

or week and the number of years of smoking.

total sum each tooth was counted only once.

the questionnaire.

the pilot study.

**3.2 Clinical investigation** 

The statistical evaluation was performed by using NCSS 2007 program. Descriptive statistics, χ2 test and logistic regression were done. To compare quantitative data (e.g. the age), Kruskal – Wallis analysis of dispersion with subsequent multiple matching (ANOVA) has been used. To evaluate qualitative data (e.g. the level of education) the X2 test of independence in the contingent tables or Fisher's exact test was used.

For calculating the odds ratio for the selected variables (such as smoking, health status, education, frequency of teeth brushing, taking part in preventive check ups, food consumption even after the evening teeth brushing) we employed the method of multiple logistic regression.

#### **4. Results**

#### **4.1 Results of questionnaire part of the study**

During the 3 years period of data collection, we investigated 1 684 respondents. Participants were chosen randomly, with age above 69 years and less than 30 years being the only exclusion criterion. Our sample consisted of 792 males and 922 females with mean age of 44.2 years. There were 489 current smokers (369 regular and 120 occasional ones), 261 former smokers and 934 non-smokers among them (table 1).

The level of respondents´ education in individual groups is illustrated in table 2. People with the basic education represented 28.3%, 7.9% were skilled with graduation exam, 41.6% passed the high school and 22.2% had the university education. Majority of the respondents with the basic education (44%) were found to be regular smokers. The highest number among university educated persons (28.2%) was identified as non-smokers. Quite surprisingly, we found relatively high prevalence of people with the high school education as regular and occasional smokers. These results are significantly different (p < 0.001).

The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 255

As for the attitude towards oral health, we can conclude that the participation in the preventive check-ups by dentist was far from being optimal (table 4). In Czech Republic, the dental health care system provides its citizens the opportunity to participate in dental prevention programs two times yearly and this check ups are free of charge, paid from health insurance. From the results of our study we can see that prevention twice a year was performed by 64.8% respondents only, whereas 22.8% visited the dentist once a year. Nevertheless, the attitude of non-smokers and smokers towards preventive dental checkups were different; whereby non-smokers visited their dentists more often than smokers and former smokers. Among regular smokers, 6.3% visited the dentist once in two years, 7.9% respondents took part in check-ups less frequently; and 8.7% never attended preventive check-

**Occasional** 

**2 times a year** 52.3 63.0 62.8 70.6 64.8 **Once a year** 24.8 26.1 23.0 21.6 22.8 **Once in 2 years** 6.3 2.5 5.0 3.1 4.1 **Less frequently** 7.9 6.7 6.1 2.9 4.8 **Never** 8.7 1.7 3.1 1.8 3.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 4. Percentage of respondents participating in preventive dental check-ups (p < 0,001;

We also found a different approach of smokers and non-smokers to the oral hygiene (table 5). Most of the investigated persons (87.6%) brushed their teeth twice or even three times a day. The majority of them were non-smokers, former or occasional smokers. Almost 90% of respondents from these groups brushed their teeth 2 – 3 times a day. The regular smokers did so in 78.2% only. More than 15% of regular smokers brushed their teeth once a day only and another 6.5% of them even less often. Results are statistically significant (p < 0.00l).

**Occasional** 

Almost all the probands (98.3 %) used the tooth brush and tooth paste. Dental floss and interdental brushes were used by non-smokers and former smokers (p =0,001). Regular use

**3 times a day or more** 7.3 7.6 5.8 14.7 11.2 **2 times a day** 70.9 83.1 83.8 75.6 76.4 **Once daily** 15.2 7.6 7.7 8.8 9.9 **Less frequently** 6.5 1.7 2.7 1.0 2.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

**smoker Ex-smoker Non-**

**smoker Ex-smoker Non-**

**smoker Total** 

**smoker** Total

ups. These findings were found to be statistically significantly different (p < 0.001).

**smoker** 

**Regular smoker** 

Table 5. Tooth brushing frequency (%); p < 0.001; χ2 test

**Preventive check-ups Regular** 

χ2 test)


Table 1. Classification according to cigarette smoking and gender (p < 0.001; χ2 test)


Table 2. Educational qualification of respondents in percentage (p < 0,001; χ2 test)

Table 3 shows the average monthly income per head in the family of our respondents. In our study, 3.7% of investigated persons belonged to the lowest income group, 30.4% in the middle, and 47.3% in the higher income group. About 5% of respondents did not know the exact family income, and 13.7% of them refused to answer. The income differences between smokers and non-smokers were not statistically significant (p= 0,665). From these results we can only find not statistically lower frequency of people with the higher incomes in the group of smokers.


Table 3. Characteristics according to the income, it means the net monthly earnings per person in the family (p = 0,665; χ2 test)

**Regular** 206 26.0 163 18.2 369 21.9 **Occasional** 63 8.0 57 6.4 120 7.1 **Ex-smoker** 161 20.3 100 11.2 261 15.5 **Non-smoker** 362 45.7 572 64.2 934 55.5 **Total** 792 100.0 922 100.0 1684 100.0

Table 1. Classification according to cigarette smoking and gender (p < 0.001; χ2 test)

**Occasional** 

**Basic** 44.0 25.0 26.8 23.0 28.3 **Vocational** 9.8 11.7 10.3 6.0 7.9 **High school** 35.8 45.0 44.1 42.8 41.6

**graduation** 10.4 18.3 18.8 28.2 22.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3 shows the average monthly income per head in the family of our respondents. In our study, 3.7% of investigated persons belonged to the lowest income group, 30.4% in the middle, and 47.3% in the higher income group. About 5% of respondents did not know the exact family income, and 13.7% of them refused to answer. The income differences between smokers and non-smokers were not statistically significant (p= 0,665). From these results we can only find not statistically lower frequency of people with the higher incomes in the

**Occasional** 

**Not willing to disclose** 14.5 15.1 11.7 13.7 13.7 **< 5000 CZK** 4.7 4.2 3.5 3.3 3.7 **5000 – 10000 CZK** 30.7 23.5 28.8 31.6 30.4 **> 10000 CZK** 44.1 51.3 52.1 46.8 47.3 **Do not know** 6.0 5.9 3.9 4.6 4.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3. Characteristics according to the income, it means the net monthly earnings per

**smoker Ex-smoker Non-**

Table 2. Educational qualification of respondents in percentage (p < 0,001; χ2 test)

**smoker** 

**Males Females Total n % n % n %** 

**smoker Ex-smoker Non-**

**smoker** Total

**smoker Total** 

**Smoker**:

**University** 

group of smokers.

**Income/moths/person Regular** 

person in the family (p = 0,665; χ2 test)

**Education Regular** 

**smoker** 

As for the attitude towards oral health, we can conclude that the participation in the preventive check-ups by dentist was far from being optimal (table 4). In Czech Republic, the dental health care system provides its citizens the opportunity to participate in dental prevention programs two times yearly and this check ups are free of charge, paid from health insurance. From the results of our study we can see that prevention twice a year was performed by 64.8% respondents only, whereas 22.8% visited the dentist once a year. Nevertheless, the attitude of non-smokers and smokers towards preventive dental checkups were different; whereby non-smokers visited their dentists more often than smokers and former smokers. Among regular smokers, 6.3% visited the dentist once in two years, 7.9% respondents took part in check-ups less frequently; and 8.7% never attended preventive checkups. These findings were found to be statistically significantly different (p < 0.001).


Table 4. Percentage of respondents participating in preventive dental check-ups (p < 0,001; χ2 test)

We also found a different approach of smokers and non-smokers to the oral hygiene (table 5). Most of the investigated persons (87.6%) brushed their teeth twice or even three times a day. The majority of them were non-smokers, former or occasional smokers. Almost 90% of respondents from these groups brushed their teeth 2 – 3 times a day. The regular smokers did so in 78.2% only. More than 15% of regular smokers brushed their teeth once a day only and another 6.5% of them even less often. Results are statistically significant (p < 0.00l).


Table 5. Tooth brushing frequency (%); p < 0.001; χ2 test

Almost all the probands (98.3 %) used the tooth brush and tooth paste. Dental floss and interdental brushes were used by non-smokers and former smokers (p =0,001). Regular use

The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 257

An important difference between smokers and non-smokers was also found in the consumption of food and sweetened drinks after the evening teeth brushing (table 7), which

**Occasional** 

Yes, that is true. 34,7 48,3 52,6 61,6 53,4

Yes, that is true. 48,9 46,6 38,2 33,2 38,3

Yes, that is true. 16,4 5,2 9,2 5,3 8,3

Table 7. Food and sweet drinks consumption after the evening teeth brushing (%); χ2 test The last part of the questionnaire was aimed to the subjective assessment of oral cavity status by respondents themselves, on assessment of the quality of life in connection with the oral health, and finally on the knowledge of respondents regarding the harmfulness of smoking. Table 8 shows that half of respondents (53.6%) evaluated appearances of their own dentition as good, 44% were unsatisfied and 2.2% were not interested in evaluation. When taking into account the history of smoking we can see that non-smokers were satisfied with their dental health more often (57.9%) when compared with those with the smoking history. The lowest degree of satisfaction was found among the regular smokers. These findings were statistically markedly significant (p < 0.001). The status of teeth, gingivae and oral mucosa were considered to be in good condition by 49.6% of the investigated individuals. One quarter of total number considered this status as bad and 25.4% were not able to answer this question. When answering this question the non-smokers considered their oral health status being good more often than regular or even former smokers (p < 0.001). Regular and former smokers thought that their oral health is poorer when compared with

Level of respondents' knowledge regarding the harmful effects of smoking is illustrated in table 9. According to our opinion these results were rather favorable. Nearly all the members of our study (95.6%) knew that smoking harms the health. Nevertheless, smokers showed statistically much poorer knowledge when compared with the non-smokers (p < 0.001). The awareness concerning negative influence of smoking on oral cavity was found to be low. Positive answer was obtained from 90.5%, but smokers response was markedly less frequent (78.9%) when compared to non-smokers or former smokers (p < 0.001). For the question whether they were informed about the negative effects of smoking on one's health by their dentist, the positive response rate was only 49%, mainly answered by regular smokers. On the contrary, the non-smokers were not informed (p < 0.001), which means that the health education was performed rather selectively, most often targeted on

**smoker Ex-smoker Non-**

**smoker** Total

was more frequent in smokers with comparison to non-smokers.

I never **eat or drink any sweet drinks or beer or milk"**

**I usually do not** eat or drink sweet drinks"

**I still eat** some food and drink sweet drinks"

the rest of population (p< 0.001).

the smokers.

**Regular smoker** 

**"After having brushed teeth in the evening:** 

of mouth wash were being performed regularly (12.7%) or occasionally (48.9 %) mainly by non-smokers and former smokers (p < 0.0l5).

Table 6 illustrates the eating habits of our respondents. We enquired about the consumption of risky foods (confectionary, sweet drinks) as well as protective ones (fruit, vegetable as a source of natural antioxidants). In this table we also included the questions concerning alcohol consumption.

Statistical evaluation revealed the consumption of sweets to be generally high. Nearly 14% of our respondents consumed confectioneries regularly or on a daily basis (13.8%), or at least several times a week (35.1 %). There was a statistically significant difference between smokers and non-smokers. The regular and former smokers consumed much less sweets than occasional smokers and non-smokers (p < 0.001). Also the consumption of sweetened drinks was rather high, 18.7% of respondents consumed sweetened drinks daily and more than one quarter of investigated persons (27.1%) had such drinks several times a week. The consumption of sweetened drinks was more popular among smokers compared to nonsmokers (p < 0.001).

In case of a healthy diet consumed by the respondents such as the use of fruits and vegetables, the trend was just opposite. Fruits and vegetables were consumed regularly by 53% of respondents, significantly more often by the non-smokers and former smokers (p < 0.001).

The regular daily consummation of beer and wine was agreed by 7.5% of respondents. The regular smokers were leading this ladder (p < 0.001). 1.4% of investigated persons agreed to have consumed spirits on a regular daily basis. The regular smokers represented a marked majority, statistically significant (p < 0.001).


Table 6. Eating habits of respondents (in percentages)

of mouth wash were being performed regularly (12.7%) or occasionally (48.9 %) mainly by

Table 6 illustrates the eating habits of our respondents. We enquired about the consumption of risky foods (confectionary, sweet drinks) as well as protective ones (fruit, vegetable as a source of natural antioxidants). In this table we also included the questions concerning

Statistical evaluation revealed the consumption of sweets to be generally high. Nearly 14% of our respondents consumed confectioneries regularly or on a daily basis (13.8%), or at least several times a week (35.1 %). There was a statistically significant difference between smokers and non-smokers. The regular and former smokers consumed much less sweets than occasional smokers and non-smokers (p < 0.001). Also the consumption of sweetened drinks was rather high, 18.7% of respondents consumed sweetened drinks daily and more than one quarter of investigated persons (27.1%) had such drinks several times a week. The consumption of sweetened drinks was more popular among smokers compared to non-

In case of a healthy diet consumed by the respondents such as the use of fruits and vegetables, the trend was just opposite. Fruits and vegetables were consumed regularly by 53% of respondents, significantly more often by the non-smokers and former smokers (p < 0.001). The regular daily consummation of beer and wine was agreed by 7.5% of respondents. The regular smokers were leading this ladder (p < 0.001). 1.4% of investigated persons agreed to have consumed spirits on a regular daily basis. The regular smokers represented a marked

**smoker Ex-smoker Non-**

**smoker** Total

**Occasional** 

daily 13.2 15.3 12.6 14.2 13.8

daily 27.0 23.5 16.5 15.4 18.7

daily 38.0 47.5 54.9 58.9 52.9

daily 11.9 6.8 10.7 5.1 7.5

daily 2.8 2.6 2.0 0.4 1.4

non-smokers and former smokers (p < 0.0l5).

majority, statistically significant (p < 0.001).

**Regular smoker** 

**Sweet drinks** (soft drinks, coca-cola, juices)

Table 6. Eating habits of respondents (in percentages)

alcohol consumption.

smokers (p < 0.001).

**Sweets** 

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

**Beer and vine** p < 0.001; χ2 test

**Distilled liquors** p < 0.001; χ2 test

p < 0.001; χ2 test

p < 0.001; χ2 test

**Fruits and vegetables**  p < 0.001; χ2 test

An important difference between smokers and non-smokers was also found in the consumption of food and sweetened drinks after the evening teeth brushing (table 7), which was more frequent in smokers with comparison to non-smokers.


Table 7. Food and sweet drinks consumption after the evening teeth brushing (%); χ2 test

The last part of the questionnaire was aimed to the subjective assessment of oral cavity status by respondents themselves, on assessment of the quality of life in connection with the oral health, and finally on the knowledge of respondents regarding the harmfulness of smoking. Table 8 shows that half of respondents (53.6%) evaluated appearances of their own dentition as good, 44% were unsatisfied and 2.2% were not interested in evaluation. When taking into account the history of smoking we can see that non-smokers were satisfied with their dental health more often (57.9%) when compared with those with the smoking history. The lowest degree of satisfaction was found among the regular smokers. These findings were statistically markedly significant (p < 0.001). The status of teeth, gingivae and oral mucosa were considered to be in good condition by 49.6% of the investigated individuals. One quarter of total number considered this status as bad and 25.4% were not able to answer this question. When answering this question the non-smokers considered their oral health status being good more often than regular or even former smokers (p < 0.001). Regular and former smokers thought that their oral health is poorer when compared with the rest of population (p< 0.001).

Level of respondents' knowledge regarding the harmful effects of smoking is illustrated in table 9. According to our opinion these results were rather favorable. Nearly all the members of our study (95.6%) knew that smoking harms the health. Nevertheless, smokers showed statistically much poorer knowledge when compared with the non-smokers (p < 0.001). The awareness concerning negative influence of smoking on oral cavity was found to be low. Positive answer was obtained from 90.5%, but smokers response was markedly less frequent (78.9%) when compared to non-smokers or former smokers (p < 0.001). For the question whether they were informed about the negative effects of smoking on one's health by their dentist, the positive response rate was only 49%, mainly answered by regular smokers. On the contrary, the non-smokers were not informed (p < 0.001), which means that the health education was performed rather selectively, most often targeted on the smokers.

The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 259

**Number of filled teeth (F)** 

> pvalue

> > (\*\*)

(NS)

(\*)

0,020 (\*)

<0,001 (\*\*\*)

<0,001

Mean ± s.d.

9,18

9,84 ± 5,26

9,58 ± 5,10 0,11

9,57 ± 5,89

9,24 ± 5,29 0,028

9,83 ± 5,45

9,35 ± 5,66

9,21 ± 5,05

10,00 ± 5,32

9,11 ± 5,23

10,10 ± 5,42

9,13 ± 5,13

7,60 ± 4,59

8,78 ± 5,14

5,09 ± 4,59

8,81 ± 5,43

9,81 ± 5,33

±5,52 0,008

**Number of decayed teeth with fillings (D+F)**

> pvalue

> > (\*)

Mean ± sd.

1,46 ± 2,56 0,046

1,03 ± 1,76

1,20 ± 1,98 0,842 (NS)

1,27 ± 2,48

1,28 ± 2,20 0,649 (NS)

1,17 ± 2,14

1,37 ± 2,39

1,25 ±1,76

1,14 ± 2,15

1,20 ± 2,02

1,10 ± 2,11

1,37 ± 2,12

1,44 ± 2,31

1,59 ± 1,93

1,89 ± 3,21

0,86 ± 1,15

1,24 ± 2,22 0,301 (NS)

0,003 (\*\*)

0,677

**DMF index** 

pvalue

Mean ± s.d.

17,23 ± 7,35 0,001

16,05 ± 7,06

14,41

20,70 ± 6,62

16,56 ± 7,37 0,879

16,57 ± 7,05

18,60 ± 7,26

16,10 ± 6,71

16,36 ± 6,93

14,51 ± 7,16

16,33 ± 7,02

16,12 ± 7,16

17,00 ± 7,82

19,38 ± 7,52

19,19 ± 8,32

15,92

16,31 ± 7,08

± 7,26 <0,001

<0,001 (\*\*\*)

<0,001 (\*\*\*)

± 6,52 <0,001

**Number of missed teeth (M)** 

± 6,82 <0,001

± 3,79 <0,001

± 6,67 0,508

pvalue

(\*\*\*)

(\*\*\*)

(NS)

<0,001 (\*\*\*)

<0,001 (\*\*\*)

<0,001

(\*\*\*) 2 times/day 0,79

(NS) - females 0,73

(\*\*\*) - 50 or older 0,91

(\*\*) - non-smokers 0,70

Mean ± s.d.

5,65

4,53 ± 5,93

2,88

9,06 ± 8,01

5,14

4,89 ± 6,03

6,75 ± 7,30

4,62 ± 5,64

4,65 ± 6,18

3,56 ± 4,88

4,52 ± 5,61

4,79 ± 6,10

6,93 ± 8,16

7,48 ± 8,54

9,46 ±10,05

5,70 ± 7,40

4,56 ± 5,77

**Variables** 

**Smoking:** 

**Age:** 

**Sex:** 

**Education:** 


**-** younger 50 0,83


Basic 1,17

Vocational 1,14

High school 0,65

University 0,74

**Preventive check-ups:**

Once a year 0,91

Never 2,90

**Tooth brushing frequency:**

Two times a

Once in 2 years

3 times or more

year

Less frequently

**Number of decayed teeth (D)**

± 1,94 0,003

±1,75 0,21

±1,91 0,008

pvalue

(\*\*)

(NS)

(\*)

<0,001 (\*\*\*)

<0,001 (\*\*\*)

<0,001

Mean ± s.d.

± 1,50

±1,66

±1,52

± 1,80

± 1,25

± 1,35

0,66 ± 1,28

± 1,56

1,34 ± 1,68

1,54 ± 2,23

± 4,80

0,62 ± 1,32

± 1,49

± 2,32


Table 8. Subjective assessment of oral health by respondents (%)


Table 9. Knowledge of respondents about the health consequences of smoking (%)

#### **4.2 Results of clinical part of the study 4.2.1 Influence of smoking on DMF index**

The assessment of a dental status showed that smokers had a significantly higher DMF index when compared to non-smokers (17.2 vs. 16; p = 0.001) (table 10), which had been caused mainly due to a higher number of decayed teeth (D) (1.06 vs. 0.7; p = 0.003), missing teeth (M) (5.65 vs. 4.53; p < 0.001) and decayed teeth with fillings (D+F) (1.46 vs. 1.03; p = 0.04).

**Occasional** 




**"How do you assess the health status of your teeth, gingivae and oral mucosa?"** 

**smoker Ex-smoker Non-**

**smoker Ex-smoker Non-smoker** Total

**smoker** Total

**Questions: Regular** 

p < 0. 001; χ2 test

p < 0. 001; χ2 test

p< 0. 001; χ2 test

p < 0. 001; χ2 test

p < 0. 001; χ2 test

p < 0. 001; χ2 test

Questions: **Regular** 

**smoker** 

**4.2 Results of clinical part of the study 4.2.1 Influence of smoking on DMF index** 

**"Do you think smoking is harmful for your health? "** 

**smoker** 

**"In comparison with the others, do you think your oral health is":** 

Table 8. Subjective assessment of oral health by respondents (%)

**"Do you think smoking has bad influence on your oral health?"** 

**Occasional** 

**-** yes 89,4 95,8 98,5 97,2 95,6



The assessment of a dental status showed that smokers had a significantly higher DMF index when compared to non-smokers (17.2 vs. 16; p = 0.001) (table 10), which had been caused mainly due to a higher number of decayed teeth (D) (1.06 vs. 0.7; p = 0.003), missing teeth (M) (5.65 vs. 4.53; p < 0.001) and decayed teeth with fillings (D+F) (1.46 vs. 1.03; p = 0.04).

Table 9. Knowledge of respondents about the health consequences of smoking (%)

**"Are you satisfied with the appearance of your teeth?"** 


The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 261

Smoking is of course only one of the factors that affect the periodontal status. A wide range of demographic factors, such as age, educational level and socioeconomic factors, have been identified as associated with chronic inflammatory diseases (Gamonal et al., 1998). In table 12 we present the percentage of respondents with the highest CPI findings according to the level of age, sex, education, participation in preventive dental check-ups, tooth brushing frequency and smoking history. According to the results of χ² test of independence in contingency tables, all these variables had a statistically significant influence on CPI (p<

Smokers 5.6 27.2 13.9 34.5 7.3 Non-smokers 9.1 33.7 13.8 29.5 6.8

Smokers 17.4 31.7 24.0 15.0 5.2 Non-smokers 25.3 37.3 19.3 10.4 3.7

Smokers 7.0 23.7 16.4 32.8 9.8 Non-smokers 11.5 31.3 17.2 25.6 6.8

Smokers 5.6 30.0 14.3 30.3 11.5 Non-smokers 10.2 35.2 14.1 27.2 6.5

Smokers 4.2 14.3 58.9 15.7 3.5 Non-smokers 8.6 18.8 59.0 8.1 3.1

Smokers 5.9 27,9 15,3 30,0 11,5 Non-smokers 10.2 37,1 14,4 24,5 6,8

The primary aim of our survey was to assess the influence of smoking on oral health. Using the method of multivariable logistic regression we determined the odds ratio (OR) for eight selected variables on mean number of decayed teeth (D) and on periodontitis with TN III score. The reference value was set as number of D = 0 (e.g. absence of decayed teeth) and absence of CPI 4 (e.g. no deep gingival pockets were found). As a reference level for each of selected variable (odds = 1) the best particular value was considered, which means nonsmoker, younger age, women, university educated respondent who brushes his/her teeth twice a day or even more often and those who participates in the dental preventive follow-

Table 11. CPITN score (%) of smokers and non-smokers in each sextant

**CPITN 0 CPITN 1 CPITN 2 CPITN 3 CPITN 4** 

0.001).

**1st sextant** (p=0.076; χ² test)

**2nd sextant** (p=0.016; χ ² test)

**3rd sextant** (p=0.021; χ ² test)

**4th sextant** (p=0.043; χ² test)

**5th sextant** (p=0.007; χ² test)

**6th sextant** (p=0.011; χ² test)

ups twice a year.


Table 10. The impact of some variables on the DMF index value s.d. = standard deviation

On the contrary, the mean number of teeth with fillings (F) was significantly higher in nonsmokers than smokers (9.84 vs. 9.18; p = 0,008), which most probably corresponds with better participation of non-smokers in the follow-ups.

Smoking is one of many confounding factors which deteriorate the status of dentition and oral health in general. From the other variables of our study (table 10), the most influential predictors of dental status or DMF value are as follows: the age (linear relation), the level of education achieved (non-linear relation), taking part in preventive dental check-ups (nonlinear relation), tooth brushing frequency (non-linear relation), and consumption of food/beverages after evening tooth brushing. Among the respondents in higher age group, there was a higher number of missing teeth (M). In our sample, the average number of missing teeth in respondents younger than 50 years reached 2.88, while in the age group of 50-69, it was 9.06 (p < 0.001). The number of missing teeth was higher in respondents with a lower educational status, lower frequency of preventive dental visits (less than once a year), lower frequency of tooth brushing (less than twice a day) and among those who consumed food/beverages after the evening tooth brushing. The number of decayed teeth was also higher in patients with a lower education, among those who brushed their teeth less than twice daily, among those who visited dentist less frequently and among those who consumed food/beverages after the evening tooth brushing. The same factors influenced significantly the number of filled teeth; nevertheless in this case it was a non-linear relation.

#### **4.2.2 Influence of smoking on the periodontium**

Negative influence of smoking on the periodontium was even more conclusive (table 11). While the non-smokers recorded higher prevalence of CPI 0 (healthy periodontium) in all sextants, the smokers had in all sextants a higher prevalence of CPI 3, or resp. CPI 4 (shallow or deep gingival pockets). Lower levels of CPI 1 (gingiva bleeding on probing) among smokers were undoubtedly caused by vasoconstriction effect of nicotine on the vessels of gingival plexus and an increasing keratinization of gingival epithelium.

**Number of filled teeth (F)** 

> pvalue

> > (\*\*\*) 1,28

Mean ± s.d.

± 5,44

6,30 ± 5,45

8,07

9,76 ± 5,33

± 5,45 <0,001

(\*\*\*)

**Number of decayed teeth with fillings (D+F)**

> pvalue

Mean ± sd.

± 2,10

2,15 ± 3,62

1,60 ± 2,69 0,540 (NS)

1,19 ± 2,10 **DMF index** 

pvalue

Mean ± s.d.

19,57 ± 7,81

18,82

16,30 ± 7,09

± 7,68 <0,001

(NS) 18,28 ± 7,52

**Number of missed teeth (M)** 

> pvalue

> > (\*\*\*) 9,14

Mean ± s.d.

± 7,82

9,31 ± 8,35

7,33

4,68 ± 6,00

Table 10. The impact of some variables on the DMF index value

± 7,86 <0,001

(\*\*\*)

(\*\*\*) - No 0,77

On the contrary, the mean number of teeth with fillings (F) was significantly higher in nonsmokers than smokers (9.84 vs. 9.18; p = 0,008), which most probably corresponds with

Smoking is one of many confounding factors which deteriorate the status of dentition and oral health in general. From the other variables of our study (table 10), the most influential predictors of dental status or DMF value are as follows: the age (linear relation), the level of education achieved (non-linear relation), taking part in preventive dental check-ups (nonlinear relation), tooth brushing frequency (non-linear relation), and consumption of food/beverages after evening tooth brushing. Among the respondents in higher age group, there was a higher number of missing teeth (M). In our sample, the average number of missing teeth in respondents younger than 50 years reached 2.88, while in the age group of 50-69, it was 9.06 (p < 0.001). The number of missing teeth was higher in respondents with a lower educational status, lower frequency of preventive dental visits (less than once a year), lower frequency of tooth brushing (less than twice a day) and among those who consumed food/beverages after the evening tooth brushing. The number of decayed teeth was also higher in patients with a lower education, among those who brushed their teeth less than twice daily, among those who visited dentist less frequently and among those who consumed food/beverages after the evening tooth brushing. The same factors influenced significantly the number of filled teeth; nevertheless in this case it was a non-linear

Negative influence of smoking on the periodontium was even more conclusive (table 11). While the non-smokers recorded higher prevalence of CPI 0 (healthy periodontium) in all sextants, the smokers had in all sextants a higher prevalence of CPI 3, or resp. CPI 4 (shallow or deep gingival pockets). Lower levels of CPI 1 (gingiva bleeding on probing) among smokers were undoubtedly caused by vasoconstriction effect of nicotine on the vessels of

gingival plexus and an increasing keratinization of gingival epithelium.

**Variables** 

Less frequently

relation.

Once daily 1,33


s.d. = standard deviation

**Number of decayed teeth (D)**

> pvalue

> > (\*\*\*) 6,50

Mean ± s.d.

± 2,06

2,32 ± 4,61

**Eating after evening tooth brushing:**

± 1,54

± 2,93 <0,001

(\*\*\*)

better participation of non-smokers in the follow-ups.

**4.2.2 Influence of smoking on the periodontium** 

Smoking is of course only one of the factors that affect the periodontal status. A wide range of demographic factors, such as age, educational level and socioeconomic factors, have been identified as associated with chronic inflammatory diseases (Gamonal et al., 1998). In table 12 we present the percentage of respondents with the highest CPI findings according to the level of age, sex, education, participation in preventive dental check-ups, tooth brushing frequency and smoking history. According to the results of χ² test of independence in contingency tables, all these variables had a statistically significant influence on CPI (p< 0.001).


Table 11. CPITN score (%) of smokers and non-smokers in each sextant

The primary aim of our survey was to assess the influence of smoking on oral health. Using the method of multivariable logistic regression we determined the odds ratio (OR) for eight selected variables on mean number of decayed teeth (D) and on periodontitis with TN III score. The reference value was set as number of D = 0 (e.g. absence of decayed teeth) and absence of CPI 4 (e.g. no deep gingival pockets were found). As a reference level for each of selected variable (odds = 1) the best particular value was considered, which means nonsmoker, younger age, women, university educated respondent who brushes his/her teeth twice a day or even more often and those who participates in the dental preventive followups twice a year.

The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 263

Our results in table 13 showed that incidence of decayed teeth is enhanced mainly by the consumption of food/beverages after evening tooth brushing (OR=1.68; p=0.011) and low participation in preventive check-ups (OR=1.77; p= 0.0013). Smoking increased the risk of decayed teeth as well (OR=1.23), but the result was not significant (p=0.061). Nevertheless, our findings confirmed the fact that there exists a dose and effect relationship with smoking. Though not statistically significant in our study, the number of dental caries occurrence increased in individuals who smoked more than 10 cigarettes per

Different results were found when assessing the influence of smoking on periodontium (table 14). The risk for periodontitis with TN III score (which means the findings of CPI 4) was statistically increased with age (OR=2.63; p<0.001), low tooth brushing frequency (OR=2.18; p<0.001), and low participation in dental prevention check-ups (OR=1.8; p=0.007). Smoking increased the risk as well (OR=1.33), but the result was not significant (p=0.065). Nevertheless, the risk markedly increases with the number of cigarettes smoked. Smoking 11 or more cigarettes a day increased the risk of periodontitis (CPITN III), which emphasizes the need for a complex dental care (OR=1.98, p=0.0043). Smoking of 10 or less cigarettes per day increases the risk of periodontitis (CPITN III grade) as well, but in this case, not

**Age** 0.99 0.77 1.26 0.908 (NS) **Sex** 1.13 0.91 1.41 0.262 (NS) **Preventive check-ups once a year** 1.28 1.00 1.65 0.054 (NS)

**frequently** 1.77 1.25 2.50 0.0013 (\*) **Basic education, skilled** 0.98 0.74 1.31 0.903 (NS) **High school** 0.78 0.59 1.03 0.082 (NS)

day or less frequently 1.27 0.9 1.79 0.177 (NS) **Smoking associated illnesses** 1.13 0.81 1.57 0.479 (NS)

**with smoking** 1.11 0.82 1.51 0.497 (NS)

**brushing** 1.68 1.12 2.51 0.011 (\*) **Smoking** 1.23 0.99 1.54 0.061 (NS) **- smoking to 10 cig./day** 0.99 0.69 1.41 0.941 (NS) **- smoking 11 and more cig/day** 1.23 0.84 1.81 0.293 (NS)

Table 13. Impact of selected variables on number of decayed teeth (reference value D= 0) OR = odds ratio, CI-L = lower 95% confidence interval, CI-U = upper 95% confidence interval

NS (non-significant) = p ≥ 0.05; \* = p < 0.05; \*\* = p < 0.01; \*\*\* p < 0.001

**OR CI-L CI-U p-value** 

day.

significantly (OR = 1.67; p= 0.027).

**Preventive check-ups low** 

**Tooth brushing frequency** once a

**Illnesses without association** 

**Eating after evening tooth** 


Table 12. Percentage of respondents with highest CPI in relation to selected variables

Regular 1,1 9,2 27,4 36,9 25,4 Occasional 1,7 16,1 33,1 34,7 14,4 Ex-smoker 1,2 11,0 30,3 42,1 15,4 Non-smoker 1,8 18,6 30,7 35,2 13,7

30-49 years 2.1 19.4 32.1 35.2 11.2 50-69 years 0.4 6.8 22.1 43.2 27.4

Males 1.3 12.4 26.1 41.7 18.4 Females 1.7 18.0 31.3 33.9 15.1

Basic school 0,6 9,1 27,4 38,8 24,1 Vocational 0,8 17,6 26,7 39,7 15,3 High School 2,2 15,8 32,2 36,6 13,2 University 1,9 20,9 30,7 32,9 13,6

2 times a year 2,0 18,1 33,4 33,6 13,0 Once a year 0,5 11,1 26,0 42,7 19,6 Once in 2 years 0,0 10,4 23,9 40,3 25,4 Less frequently 3,9 5,3 22,4 36,8 31,6 Never 0,0 5,7 11,3 49,1 34,0

3 times a day 2,3 25,4 32,2 25,4 14,7 2 times a day 1,5 15,0 31,3 38,1 14,1 Once daily 1,2 8,0 21,0 40,1 29,6 Less frequently 2,6 5,1 17,9 28,2 46,2

Table 12. Percentage of respondents with highest CPI in relation to selected variables

**Participation on preventive check-ups** (χ2 test; p < 0,001)

**Tooth brushing frequency** (χ2 test; p < 0,001)

**Smoking** (χ2 test; p < 0,001)

**Age** (χ2 test; p < 0,001)

**Sex** (χ2 test; p < 0,001)

**Education** (χ2 test; p < 0,001)

**CPI 0 CPI 1 CPI 2 CPI 3 CPI 4** 

Our results in table 13 showed that incidence of decayed teeth is enhanced mainly by the consumption of food/beverages after evening tooth brushing (OR=1.68; p=0.011) and low participation in preventive check-ups (OR=1.77; p= 0.0013). Smoking increased the risk of decayed teeth as well (OR=1.23), but the result was not significant (p=0.061). Nevertheless, our findings confirmed the fact that there exists a dose and effect relationship with smoking. Though not statistically significant in our study, the number of dental caries occurrence increased in individuals who smoked more than 10 cigarettes per day.

Different results were found when assessing the influence of smoking on periodontium (table 14). The risk for periodontitis with TN III score (which means the findings of CPI 4) was statistically increased with age (OR=2.63; p<0.001), low tooth brushing frequency (OR=2.18; p<0.001), and low participation in dental prevention check-ups (OR=1.8; p=0.007). Smoking increased the risk as well (OR=1.33), but the result was not significant (p=0.065). Nevertheless, the risk markedly increases with the number of cigarettes smoked. Smoking 11 or more cigarettes a day increased the risk of periodontitis (CPITN III), which emphasizes the need for a complex dental care (OR=1.98, p=0.0043). Smoking of 10 or less cigarettes per day increases the risk of periodontitis (CPITN III grade) as well, but in this case, not significantly (OR = 1.67; p= 0.027).


Table 13. Impact of selected variables on number of decayed teeth (reference value D= 0) OR = odds ratio, CI-L = lower 95% confidence interval, CI-U = upper 95% confidence interval NS (non-significant) = p ≥ 0.05; \* = p < 0.05; \*\* = p < 0.01; \*\*\* p < 0.001

The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 265

smoking, the fewest resources, and the least access to cessation services. Socio-economic disadvantage is associated with persistent smoking, and consequently the burden of smoking-related disease falls disproportionately on those with lower social-economical status (Harwood et al., 2007). In contrary to this, we have found high prevalence of current smokers in the group of respondents with highest income in Czech Republic. This fact reflects great underestimation of generally well-known health risks of smoking by smokers,

Smokers and non-smokers also differ in participation in dental prevention. Majority of Czech respondents visit the dentist for preventive check-ups twice a year. This can be explained by the fact that the regular preventive dental check-ups are covered by the Health Insurance in Czech Republic. Nevertheless, despite free dental preventive check-ups,

The differences according to the smoking habits were found also in chosen oral hygiene habits. The non-smokers had better brushing habits (brushed their teeth more frequently, used inter-dental tooth brush, dental floss and mouth wash more often and were more consistent in not eating anything after evening tooth brushing) compared to smokers. Nonsmokers also abstained from eating anything after evening brushing more consistently than

Significant difference between smokers and non-smokers has been found in eating and drinking habits. Current smokers, mainly occasional smokers, consumed sweetened drinks more frequently in comparison with non-smokers or ex-smokers. In case of consumption of fruits and vegetables the trend was opposite. Non-smokers consumed fruits and vegetables

Majority of factors mentioned above explains the differences in clinical findings in smokers and non-smokers. Smoking is considered to be an independent and most potent risk factor for chronic periodontal disease. The social and behaviour factors, which are typical among

Taking the gender of the respondents into consideration, we did not find the influence of gender on the highest (maximum) CPITN outcome. On the contrary, it has been reported that although there is no established, inherent difference between men and women in their susceptibility to periodontitis, men have been shown to exhibit worse periodontal health than women and this difference has been documented in different populations. Several periodontal diseases have been found to be more prevalent among males, even after oral hygiene, socio-economic status and age were considered, and hormonal conditions have

The age of Czech respondents significantly influenced the maximum CPITN outcome. Early evidence demonstrated that both the prevalence and severity of periodontitis increases with aging, suggesting that age may be a marker for periodontal tissue support loss. A national survey conducted in 1986 in Brazil using CPITN methodology to assess the periodontal status estimated that 5.2 % and 7.4 % of subjects in the age groups 35 to 44 and 50 to 59 years had one or more teeth with probing depth of ≥ 5.5 mm (CPITN 4) (Sorenson et al., 2004) and another national survey in the United Kingdom using CPITN estimated that 42 % of 35 to 44 year olds and 70 % of 55 to 64 year olds had CAL > 3.5 mm (Morris et al., 2001). The fact that older age group (50-69 years) of the Czech study population having a higher percentage of maximum CPITN scores 3 and 4, indicating pathological pockets, may have been caused by the cumulative effect of prolonged exposure to external risk factors including cigarette smoke rather than an age-related, intrinsic abnormality. Although there is no established,

smokers participate in these check-ups less frequently than the non-smokers do.

more often than smokers, who, on the contrary, had higher alcohol intake.

the population group of smokers, can aggravate the clinical findings.

been proposed which may explain this difference (Grossi et al., 1994).

as well as high social tolerance to this negative habit in our country.

smokers.


Table 14. Impact of selected variables on necessity of complex therapy (TN III) OR = odds ratio, CI-L = lower 95% confidence interval, CI-U = upper 95% confidence interval NS (non-significant) = p ≥ 0.05; \* = p < 0.05; \*\* = p < 0.01; \*\*\* p < 0.001

#### **5. Discussion**

Our study confirmed the differences in attitudes of smokers and non-smokers to oral health. The percentage of subjects with basic education was significantly higher among regular smokers and percentage of those with a university degree was highest among non-smokers. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies conducted in other developed countries. Researchers of a study performed in Australia noted that those living in low socio-economic status areas were more likely to smoke (Najman et al., 2006). A study published in the Journal of Canadian Dental Association stated that a higher percentage of current smokers had education less than high school (Millar & Locker, 2007) and a study conducted in America stated that inequalities in smoking exist, as evidenced by persistent class-based disparities and the growing number of smokers in the lower socio-economic groups (Sorenson et al., 2004).

It has been undoubtedly documented, that after the first Surgeon General's report in 1964, the profile of cigarette smokers in U.S.A., and consequently in the other developed countries, has reversed. Cigarette smokers nowadays are more likely to be poor and less educated. The well educated people may have higher levels of health literacy, and were more responsive to messages of health-promoting and disease-prevention behaviours and beliefs. Additionally, the poor ones may have lower information on the health risks of

**Age** 2,63 1,92 3,59 < 0,001 (\*\*\*) **Sex** 0,93 0,69 1,26 0,654 (NS) **Preventive check-ups once a year** 1,45 1,04 2,02 0,03 (\*)

**frequently** 1,8 1,17 2,76 0,0073 (\*\*) **Basic education, skilled** 1,33 0,9 1,99 0,157 (NS) **High school** 0,92 0,61 1,37 0,679 (NS)

**day or less frequently** 2,18 1,45 3,27 < 0,001 (\*\*\*) **Smoking associated illnesses** 1,39 0,94 2,07 0,102 (NS)

**with smoking** 0,97 0,65 1,46 0,894 (NS)

**brushing** 1,07 0,66 1,74 0,793 (NS) **Smoking** 1,33 0,98 1,79 0,066 (NS) **- smoking to 10 cig./day** 1,67 1,06 2,61 0,027 (\*) **- smoking 11 and more cig/day** 1,98 1,24 3,16 0,0043 (\*\*)

Our study confirmed the differences in attitudes of smokers and non-smokers to oral health. The percentage of subjects with basic education was significantly higher among regular smokers and percentage of those with a university degree was highest among non-smokers. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies conducted in other developed countries. Researchers of a study performed in Australia noted that those living in low socio-economic status areas were more likely to smoke (Najman et al., 2006). A study published in the Journal of Canadian Dental Association stated that a higher percentage of current smokers had education less than high school (Millar & Locker, 2007) and a study conducted in America stated that inequalities in smoking exist, as evidenced by persistent class-based disparities and the growing number of smokers in the lower socio-economic

It has been undoubtedly documented, that after the first Surgeon General's report in 1964, the profile of cigarette smokers in U.S.A., and consequently in the other developed countries, has reversed. Cigarette smokers nowadays are more likely to be poor and less educated. The well educated people may have higher levels of health literacy, and were more responsive to messages of health-promoting and disease-prevention behaviours and beliefs. Additionally, the poor ones may have lower information on the health risks of

Table 14. Impact of selected variables on necessity of complex therapy (TN III) OR = odds ratio, CI-L = lower 95% confidence interval, CI-U = upper 95% confidence interval

NS (non-significant) = p ≥ 0.05; \* = p < 0.05; \*\* = p < 0.01; \*\*\* p < 0.001

**Preventive check-ups less** 

**Tooth brushing frequency once a** 

**Illnesses without association** 

**Eating after evening tooth** 

**5. Discussion** 

groups (Sorenson et al., 2004).

**OR CI-L CI-U P value** 

smoking, the fewest resources, and the least access to cessation services. Socio-economic disadvantage is associated with persistent smoking, and consequently the burden of smoking-related disease falls disproportionately on those with lower social-economical status (Harwood et al., 2007). In contrary to this, we have found high prevalence of current smokers in the group of respondents with highest income in Czech Republic. This fact reflects great underestimation of generally well-known health risks of smoking by smokers, as well as high social tolerance to this negative habit in our country.

Smokers and non-smokers also differ in participation in dental prevention. Majority of Czech respondents visit the dentist for preventive check-ups twice a year. This can be explained by the fact that the regular preventive dental check-ups are covered by the Health Insurance in Czech Republic. Nevertheless, despite free dental preventive check-ups, smokers participate in these check-ups less frequently than the non-smokers do.

The differences according to the smoking habits were found also in chosen oral hygiene habits. The non-smokers had better brushing habits (brushed their teeth more frequently, used inter-dental tooth brush, dental floss and mouth wash more often and were more consistent in not eating anything after evening tooth brushing) compared to smokers. Nonsmokers also abstained from eating anything after evening brushing more consistently than smokers.

Significant difference between smokers and non-smokers has been found in eating and drinking habits. Current smokers, mainly occasional smokers, consumed sweetened drinks more frequently in comparison with non-smokers or ex-smokers. In case of consumption of fruits and vegetables the trend was opposite. Non-smokers consumed fruits and vegetables more often than smokers, who, on the contrary, had higher alcohol intake.

Majority of factors mentioned above explains the differences in clinical findings in smokers and non-smokers. Smoking is considered to be an independent and most potent risk factor for chronic periodontal disease. The social and behaviour factors, which are typical among the population group of smokers, can aggravate the clinical findings.

Taking the gender of the respondents into consideration, we did not find the influence of gender on the highest (maximum) CPITN outcome. On the contrary, it has been reported that although there is no established, inherent difference between men and women in their susceptibility to periodontitis, men have been shown to exhibit worse periodontal health than women and this difference has been documented in different populations. Several periodontal diseases have been found to be more prevalent among males, even after oral hygiene, socio-economic status and age were considered, and hormonal conditions have been proposed which may explain this difference (Grossi et al., 1994).

The age of Czech respondents significantly influenced the maximum CPITN outcome. Early evidence demonstrated that both the prevalence and severity of periodontitis increases with aging, suggesting that age may be a marker for periodontal tissue support loss. A national survey conducted in 1986 in Brazil using CPITN methodology to assess the periodontal status estimated that 5.2 % and 7.4 % of subjects in the age groups 35 to 44 and 50 to 59 years had one or more teeth with probing depth of ≥ 5.5 mm (CPITN 4) (Sorenson et al., 2004) and another national survey in the United Kingdom using CPITN estimated that 42 % of 35 to 44 year olds and 70 % of 55 to 64 year olds had CAL > 3.5 mm (Morris et al., 2001). The fact that older age group (50-69 years) of the Czech study population having a higher percentage of maximum CPITN scores 3 and 4, indicating pathological pockets, may have been caused by the cumulative effect of prolonged exposure to external risk factors including cigarette smoke rather than an age-related, intrinsic abnormality. Although there is no established,

The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 267

Smoking, as a strong and consistent risk indicator for periodontitis in the presence of calculus, an indicator of oral hygiene, has been documented in logistic regression model (Do, 2003), and smokers have been reported to exhibit a low awareness of their health (Gjermo, 2005). From this study it was evident that smokers had a higher prevalence of

In conclusion, the present study shows that despite good access to dental care in Czech Republic, cigarette smoking exerts a strong and chronic effect on periodontium and reduces bleeding on probing. The current understanding of the importance of tobacco smoking as the most potent risk factor for chronic periodontal disease now has to be applied to the clinical management of the disease. Treatment of smoking patients not including corrective measures against the smoking habits should be regarded as unethical. The outcomes of this particular survey proves that it is mandatory to implement a more rigorous anti-smoking

Project was supported by the Ministry of Health Grant Agency No. NR 8781-3/06.

*International Dental Journal,* Vol. 44, pp. 527-532. ISSN 0020-6539

*Periodontol*., Vol. 71, pp.1874-1881, ISSN 0022-3492

Ainamo, J. (1971). The Seeming Effect of Tobacco Consumption on the Occurrence of

Ainamo, J. & Ainamo, A. (1994). Validity and Relevance of the Criteria of the CPITN.

Alabandar, J.M.; Streckfus, C.F.; Adesanaya, M.R. & Winn DM. (2000). Cigar, Pipe and

Amarasena, N.; Ekanayaka, A.N.I.; Herath, L. & Miyazaki, H. (2003). Tobacco Use and Oral

Axelsson, P., Paulander, J. & Lindhe, J. (1998). Relationship Between Smoking and Dental

Beck, J.D.; Cusmano, L.; Green-Helms, W.; Koch, G.G. & Offenbacher, S. (1997). A 5 Year

Bergström, J. & Boström, L. (2001). Tobacco Smoking and Periodontal Hemorrhagic Responsiveness. *J Clin Periodontol*, Vol. 28, pp. 680-685, ISSN 0303-6979 Borrell, L.N. & Papapanou, P.N. (2005). Analytical Epidemiology of Periodontitis. *J Clin* 

Bruno-Ambrosius, K., Swanholm, G. & Twetman, S. (2005). Eating Habits, Smoking and

Dentistry. *J Periodontal Res.* Vol. 32, pp. 506-515, ISSN 0022-3484

*Periodontol*. Vol. 32 (Suppl. 6), pp. 132-158, ISSN 0303-6979

Periodontal Disease and Dental Caries. *Suom Hammaslaak Toim*. Vol. 67, No. 2, pp.

Cigarette Smoking as Risk Factors for Periodontal Disease and Tooth Loss*. J* 

Hygiene as Risk Indicators for Periodontitis. *Community Dent Oral Epidemiol.* Vol.

Status in 35-, 50-, 65-, and 75-Year-Old Individuals. *J Clin Periodontol.* Vol. 25, No. 4,

Study of Attachment Loss in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Incidence

Toothbrushing in Relation to Dental Caries: a 3-year Study in Swedish Female Teenagers. *Int J Paediatr Dent*. Vol. 15, No. 3, (May 2005), pp. 190-196, ISSN 0960-7439

supragingival and/or subgingival calculus compared to non-consumers.

**6. Conclusion** 

campaign in the dental practice.

87-94, ISSN 0039-551X.

31, pp. 158-160. ISSN 0301-5661

(Apr 1998), pp. 297-305, ISSN 0303-6979

**7. Acknowledgement** 

**8. References** 

inherent difference between men and women in their susceptibility to periodontitis, periodontal disease is often reported in epidemiological studies to be more prevalent and severe in males than in females at comparable ages (Gamonal et al., 1998; (Borrell & Papapanou, 2005), and similar results were found in the Czech population.

Education significantly influenced the maximum CPITN outcome in Czech study population. Previous studies have documented differences in periodontal health by socioeconomic indicators, i.e., income and education, but these indicators have rarely been investigated as independent variables of main interest.

Socio-economic indicators are robust markers of periodontitis. Their role in periodontal disease can be attributed to differential access to resources and opportunities that may influence preventive behaviours. Evidence also suggests that education has a greater influence than income in favourably affecting the level of periodontitis in the population (Borrell & Papapanou, 2005). University and mainly vocational school graduates of Czech population having a higher percentage of maximum CPITN score 0, indicating healthy periodontium, can be attributed to the factors mentioned above.

Preventive dental visits and brushing frequency significantly influenced the maximum CPITN outcome of the Czech population. A general principle in preventive efforts towards chronic diseases is to focus on changeable causal or modifying factors. Regarding periodontal diseases, such factors are those related to life style, such as oral hygiene, regularity of dental visits and tobacco use. Comparative studies between the Eastern European countries and the Western societies showed that socio-economically lessdeveloped Eastern European countries displayed a higher fraction with mild-to-moderate periodontitis than the Western well-developed societies. Particularly the Scandinavian countries, where a comprehensive public dental health care system with emphasis on prevention and regular dental visits has existed for more than 100 years, displayed high proportions of healthy subjects and even a low prevalence of severe periodontal disease (Gjermo, 2005). One study reported, that the subjects, who had a dental check-up at least once a year, had a significantly less gingivitis, calculus and periodontal pockets compared to those, who made less frequent visits (Lang et al., 1994). However, the same group of authors failed to find a relationship between dental insurance and improved periodontal health (Lang et al., 1995), although those with insurance were more likely to visit the dentist (Jack & Bloom, 1988). Differences among the populations of the world in terms of periodontal status, oral cleanliness and oral health behaviour probably reflect the social and economic development of the various regions. Cultural differences may also affect the attitudes towards dental health and dental care in populations (Gjermo, 2005). Lack of use of preventive care may reflect a general attitude toward preventive care, differences in willingness or ability to pay for dental services or differences in the availability of dental care.

The findings from this study concerning the fact that non-smokers exhibited a higher percentage of healthy periodontium compared to smokers, corroborates the results of several previous studies (Beck et al., 1997; Kelbauskas et al., 2003; Tanner et al., 2005; Torrungruang et al., 2005; Winn, 2001). This study also reconfirmed the relationship between smoking and a reduced gingival bleeding on probing, which has been well documented in previous studies (Dietrich et al., 2004; Müller et al., 2002; Tomar & Asma, 2000). This may be due to vasoconstrictive action of nicotine and as a result of a profound influence on vascular dynamics and cellular metabolism (Bergström & Bergström, 2001).

Smoking, as a strong and consistent risk indicator for periodontitis in the presence of calculus, an indicator of oral hygiene, has been documented in logistic regression model (Do, 2003), and smokers have been reported to exhibit a low awareness of their health (Gjermo, 2005). From this study it was evident that smokers had a higher prevalence of supragingival and/or subgingival calculus compared to non-consumers.

#### **6. Conclusion**

266 Oral Health Care – Pediatric, Research, Epidemiology and Clinical Practices

inherent difference between men and women in their susceptibility to periodontitis, periodontal disease is often reported in epidemiological studies to be more prevalent and severe in males than in females at comparable ages (Gamonal et al., 1998; (Borrell &

Education significantly influenced the maximum CPITN outcome in Czech study population. Previous studies have documented differences in periodontal health by socioeconomic indicators, i.e., income and education, but these indicators have rarely been

Socio-economic indicators are robust markers of periodontitis. Their role in periodontal disease can be attributed to differential access to resources and opportunities that may influence preventive behaviours. Evidence also suggests that education has a greater influence than income in favourably affecting the level of periodontitis in the population (Borrell & Papapanou, 2005). University and mainly vocational school graduates of Czech population having a higher percentage of maximum CPITN score 0, indicating healthy

Preventive dental visits and brushing frequency significantly influenced the maximum CPITN outcome of the Czech population. A general principle in preventive efforts towards chronic diseases is to focus on changeable causal or modifying factors. Regarding periodontal diseases, such factors are those related to life style, such as oral hygiene, regularity of dental visits and tobacco use. Comparative studies between the Eastern European countries and the Western societies showed that socio-economically lessdeveloped Eastern European countries displayed a higher fraction with mild-to-moderate periodontitis than the Western well-developed societies. Particularly the Scandinavian countries, where a comprehensive public dental health care system with emphasis on prevention and regular dental visits has existed for more than 100 years, displayed high proportions of healthy subjects and even a low prevalence of severe periodontal disease (Gjermo, 2005). One study reported, that the subjects, who had a dental check-up at least once a year, had a significantly less gingivitis, calculus and periodontal pockets compared to those, who made less frequent visits (Lang et al., 1994). However, the same group of authors failed to find a relationship between dental insurance and improved periodontal health (Lang et al., 1995), although those with insurance were more likely to visit the dentist (Jack & Bloom, 1988). Differences among the populations of the world in terms of periodontal status, oral cleanliness and oral health behaviour probably reflect the social and economic development of the various regions. Cultural differences may also affect the attitudes towards dental health and dental care in populations (Gjermo, 2005). Lack of use of preventive care may reflect a general attitude toward preventive care, differences in willingness or ability to pay for dental services or differences in the availability of dental

The findings from this study concerning the fact that non-smokers exhibited a higher percentage of healthy periodontium compared to smokers, corroborates the results of several previous studies (Beck et al., 1997; Kelbauskas et al., 2003; Tanner et al., 2005; Torrungruang et al., 2005; Winn, 2001). This study also reconfirmed the relationship between smoking and a reduced gingival bleeding on probing, which has been well documented in previous studies (Dietrich et al., 2004; Müller et al., 2002; Tomar & Asma, 2000). This may be due to vasoconstrictive action of nicotine and as a result of a profound influence on vascular dynamics and cellular metabolism (Bergström & Bergström, 2001).

Papapanou, 2005), and similar results were found in the Czech population.

investigated as independent variables of main interest.

care.

periodontium, can be attributed to the factors mentioned above.

In conclusion, the present study shows that despite good access to dental care in Czech Republic, cigarette smoking exerts a strong and chronic effect on periodontium and reduces bleeding on probing. The current understanding of the importance of tobacco smoking as the most potent risk factor for chronic periodontal disease now has to be applied to the clinical management of the disease. Treatment of smoking patients not including corrective measures against the smoking habits should be regarded as unethical. The outcomes of this particular survey proves that it is mandatory to implement a more rigorous anti-smoking campaign in the dental practice.

### **7. Acknowledgement**

Project was supported by the Ministry of Health Grant Agency No. NR 8781-3/06.

#### **8. References**


The Influence of Smoking on Dental and Periodontal Status 269

Jette, A.M., Feldman, H.A. & Tennstedt, S.L. (1993). Tobacco Use: A Modifiable Risk Factor

Johnson, N.W. & Bain, C.A. (2000). Tobacco and Oral Disease. EU-Working Group on

Johnson, G.K. & Hill, M. (2004). Cigarette Smoking and the Periodontal Patient. *J Periodontol.* 

Kassirer, B. (1994). Smoking as a Risk Factor for Gingival Problems, Periodontal Problems

Kelbauskas, E., Kelbauskiene, S.& Paipaliene, P. (2003). Factors Influencing the Health of

Kelbauskas, E.; Kelbauskiene, S. & Paipaliene, P. (2005). Smoking and Other Factors

Krejci, C.B. & Bissada, N.F. (1999). Periodontitis - The Risk of its Development. *Academy Gen* 

Lang, W.P., Farghaly, M.M., Ronis, D.L. (1994). The Relation of Preventive Dental

Lang, W.P., Ronis, D.L., Farghaly, M.M., (1995). Preventive Behaviours as Correlates of Periodontal Health Status. *J Public Health Dent,* Vol. 55, pp.10-17. ISSN 0022-4006 Lie, M.A.; Loos, B.G.; Henskens, Y.M.; Timmerman, M.F.; Veerman, E.C.; van der Velden, U.

Locker, D. (1992). Smoking and Oral Health in Older Adults. *Can J Public Health*. Vol. 83, No.

Ludwick, W. & Massler, M. (1952). Relation of Dental Caries Experience and Gingivitis to

Center). *J Dent Res*. Vol. 31, No. 3, (Jun 1952), pp. 319-322. ISSN 0022-0345 Macgregor, I.D. (1985). Survey of Toothbrushing Habits in Smokers and Nonsmokers. *Clin* 

Mackay, J. & Amos, A. (2003). Women and Tobacco. *Respirology.* Vol. 8, pp. 123-130. ISSN

Millar, W.J. & Locker, D., (2007). Smoking and Oral Health Status. *J Can Dent Assoc,* Vol. 73,

Morris, A.J., Steele, J. & White DA. (2001). The Oral Cleanliness and Periodontal Health of

Müller, H.-P.; Stadermann, S. & Heinecke, A. (2002). Gingival Recession in Smokers and

Najman, J.M., Toloo, G. & Siskind, V. (2006). Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Changes in

Non-smokers with Minimal Periodontal Disease. *J Clin Periodontol.* Vol. 29, pp. 129-

Health Risk Behaviours in Australia: 1989-90 to 2001*. Bull World Health Organ*, Vol.

*Prev Dent*. Vol. 7, No. 6, (Nov-Dec 1985), pp. 27-30. ISSN 0163-9633

UK Adults in 1998. *Br Dent J,* Vol. 191, pp.186-192. ISSN 0007-0610

*Periodontol.* Vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 979-984, ISSN 0303-6979

6, (Nov-Dec 1992), pp. 429-432. ISSN 0008-4263

No. 2, pp.155a-155g. ISSN 0709-8936

84, No.12, pp.976-984. ISSN 0042-9686

and Caries. *Univ TorDent J*. Vol. 7, No.1, pp. 6-10. ISSN 0843-5812

pp. 1271-1276. ISSN 0090-0036

Vol. 75, pp. 196-209, ISSN 0022-3492

*J,* Vol. 5, pp.144-148. ISSN 1392-8589

(Sep 2005), pp. 791-796. ISSN 0026-4075

*Dent.,* pp. 430-436. ISSN 0363-6771

ISSN 0303-6979

1323-7799

136, ISSN 0303-6979

0007-0610

for Dental Disease Among the Elderly. *Am J Public Health*. Vol. 83, No. 9, (Sep 1993),

Tobacco and Oral Health. *Br Dent J*. Vol. 189, No. 4, (Aug 2000), pp. 200-206. ISSN

Periodontal Tissue and Intensity of Dental Caries. Stomatologija, *Baltic Dent Maxilo* 

Influencing the Oral Health of Lithuanian Army Recruits. *Mil Med*. Vol. 170, No. 9,

Behaviours to Periodontal Health Status. *J Clin Periodontol*, Vol. 21, pp.194-198,

& van der Weijden, G.A. (2001). Salivary Cystatin Activity and Cystatin C in Natural and Experimental Gingivitis in Smokers and Nonsmokers. *J. Clin.* 

Cigarette Smoking in Males 17 to 21 Years Old (at the Great Lakes Naval Training


Calsina, G.; Ramón, J-M. & Echeverrí, J-J. (2002). Effects of Smoking on Periodontal Tissues. *J* 

Darby, I.B.; Hodge, P.J.; Riggio, M.P. & Kinane, D.F. (2005). Clinical and Microbiological

Dietrich, T., Bernimoulin, J.P. & Glynn, J.R. (2004). The Effect of Cigarette Smoking on

Do, G.L.; Spencer, A.J.; Roberts-Thomson, K.; Ha, H.D. (2003). Smoking as a Risk Indicator

Fagerström, K. (2002). The Epidemiology of Smoking: Health Consequences and Benefits of

Gamonal, J.A.; Polez, N.J. & Aranda W. (1998). Periodontal Conditions and Treatment

Genco, R.J. (1996). Current View of Risk Factors for Periodontal Diseases. *J Periodontol*. Vol.

Gibbs, M.D. (1952). Tobacco and Dental Caries. *J Am Coll Dent*. Vol. 19, pp. 365-367, ISSN:

Gjermo, P.E. (2005). Impact of Periodontal Preventive Programmes on the Data from

Grossi, S.G., Zambon & J.J., Ho, A.W. (1994). Assessment of Risk for Periodontal Disease. 1.

Hart, A.C. (1899). Prevention of Decay of the Teeth. *Dent Items Interest*. Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.

Harwood, G.A., Salsberry, P., Ferketich, A.K. & Wewers, M.E. (2007). Cigarette Smoking,

Framework. *Public Health Nurs.* Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 361-371. ISSN 0737-1209 Heng, C.K; Badner, V.M. & Freeman, K.D. (2006). Relationship of Cigarette Smoking to

Hirsch, J.M.; Livian, G.; Edward, S. & Noren, J.G. (1991). Tobacco Habits among Teenagers

Hyman, J.J. & Reid, B.C. (2003). Epidemiological Risk Factors for Periodontal Loss Among Adults in the United States. *J Clin Periodontol.* Vol. 30, pp. 230-237, ISSN 0303-6979 Jack, S. & Bloom, B. (1988). Use of Dental Services and Dental Health. United States, 1986.

Jacob, V.; Vellappally, S. & Smejkalova J. (2007). The Influence of Cigarette Smoking on

James, J.A.; Sayers, N.M.; Drucker, D.B. & Hul,l P.S. (1999). Effect of Tobacco Products on

Gingival Bleeding. *J Periodontol.* Vol. 75, pp. 16-22, ISSN 0022-3492

Effect of Scaling and Root Planning in Smoker and Non-smoker Chronic Aggressive Periodontitis Patients. *J Clin Periodontol*. Vol. 32, No.2, pp.200, , ISSN

for Periodontal Disease in the Middle-aged Vietnamese population. *Community* 

Needs, by CPITN, in the 35 44 and 65-74 Year Old Population in Santiago, Chile. *Int* 

Epidemiologic Studies. *J Clin Periodontol*, Vol. 32 (Suppl.6), pp. 294-300, ISSN 0303-6979

Risk Indicators for Attachment Loss. *J Periodontol.* Vol. 65, pp. 260-267, ISSN 0022-

Socioeconomic Status, and Psychological Factors: Examining a Conceptual

Dental Caries in a Population of Female Inmates. *J Correct Health Care*. Vol. 12, No.

in the City of Goteborg, Sweden, and Possible Association with Dental Caries. *Swed* 

Washington, DC: National Centre for Health Statistics, DHHS pub no (PHS) 88-

Various Aspects of Periodontal Health. *ACTA MEDICA (Hradec Kralove*). Vol. 50,

the Attachment and Growth of Periodontal Ligament Fibroblasts. *J Periodontol.* Vol.

*Clin Periodontol*. Vol. 29, pp. 771-776, ISSN 0303-6979

*Dent Oral Epidemiol.* Vol. 31, pp. 437-446. ISSN:

*Dent J*. Vol 48, pp. 96-103, ISSN 0020-6539

67, pp. 1041-1049, ISSN 0022-3492

153-163. ISSN 0382-8514

3, pp. 164-174. ISSN 1078-3458

No. 1, pp. 3-5. ISSN 1211-4286

70, pp. 518-525, ISSN:0022-3492

*Dent J.* Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 117-123. ISSN 0347-9994

1953. (Vital and Health Statistics; series 10; no 165).

Cessation. *Drugs.* Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 1-9. ISSN 0012-6667

0303-6979

0002-7979.

3492


**Part 4** 

**Clinical Oral Health Care** 

