Evaluation of Periodontal Clinicoradiographic Status and Whol Salivary Prostaglandin E2 Levels among Users of Water Pipe and Cigarettes

Asmaa Saleh Almeslet,Suha Mohammed Aljudaibi,Mohammad Abdullah Zayed Alqhtani,Abdulrahman Ahmed Aseri,Sultan Mohammed Alanazi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b5629079
2024-07-26
Abstract:Purpose: The objective was to evaluate the periodontal clinicoradiographic status and whole salivary prostaglandin E2 (PgE2) levels among users of water pipe and cigarettes. Materials and methods: Demographic data, duration of smoking (pack years), and familial history of smoking were recorded using a questionnaire. Participants were allocated into three groups based on their smoking status: group 1: self-reported cigarette smokers (CS); group 2: self-reported water-pipe-users; and group 3: non-smokers. The assessment included measurements of full-mouth plaque and gingival indices (PI and GI), as well as probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), and marginal bone loss (MBL). Unstimulated whole saliva samples were collected and PgE2 levels were measured. Group comparisons were done and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Thirty-three, 34 and 33 individuals were included in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Full mouth PI (p<0.05), GI (p<0.05), PD (p<0.05) and mesial (p<0.05) and distal (p<0.05) MBL were statistically significantly higher among patients in groups 1 and 2 than group 3. The scores of CAL in groups 1 and 2 were 3.45 ± 0.97 and 3.62 ± 1.2 mm, respectively. None of the individuals in the control group displayed CAL. PgE2 levels were statistically significantly higher among patients in groups 1 (231.5 ± 66.3 pg/ml) (p<0.05) and 2 (231.5 ± 66.3 pg/ml) (p<0.05) compared with group 3 (76.6 ± 10.6 pg/ml). In groups 1 and 2, a statistically significant relationship was observed between pack-years, the duration of water-pipe smoking, and the levels of PgE2 and PD. Conclusion: There is no difference in periodontal clinicoradiographic status and whole salivary PgE2 levels between CS and waterpipe-users; however, these parameters are worse in CS and water-pipe users than in non-smokers.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?