Evidence Hub

Comparative Assessment of Oral Health Findings Among E-Cigarette Users, Conventional Smokers, and Non-Smokers in Makkah City: A Cross-sectional Study

Mustafa Tashkandi, Dalia Nourah, H. Alhazmi, Osama Alsaleh, Motaz Almaghraby, Abdulrahman H. Alzahrani, Ahmed Alqurashi, A. Saeed et al.

Open Dentistry Journal, 2025

90 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

The rising popularity of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in Saudi Arabia has prompted concerns regarding their impact on oral health. This study compared oral health parameters among e-cigarette users, conventional smokers, and non-smokers.

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 90 participants at Umm Al-Qura University Dental Hospital, divided equally into three groups. Clinical assessments included salivary flow rate (SFR), decayed, missing, filled teeth (DMFT) index, plaque index, salivary potential of hydrogen (pH), gingival pigmentation, and gingivitis. Dry mouth and symptoms were assessed via validated questionnaires. (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests were applied (p < 0.05).

E-cigarette users showed significantly lower SFR compared to non-smokers (p < 0.01; Cohen’s d = 0.784) and a higher prevalence of gingivitis and dry mouth (p < 0.01). No significant differences were found in DMFT, plaque levels, pH, or gingival pigmentation. Most e-cigarette users perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful and more effective for smoking cessation.

E-cigarette use was linked to reduced salivary flow and greater prevalence of gingivitis and dry mouth, likely due to nicotine-induced glandular dysfunction and mucosal dehydration. In contrast, other parameters showed non- significant differences, trends aligned with prior research on vaping-related microbial and inflammatory changes. Misconceptions about e-cigarette safety remain common among users. However, the study’s cross-sectional…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 90 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free