Differences in the oral hygiene status and clinical periodontal status between conventional and electric smokers

Angguningtyas Wulandari; Sri Widiati; Bambang Priyono

doi:10.22146/majkedgiind.59681

Differences in the oral hygiene status and clinical periodontal status between conventional and electric smokers

https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.59681

Angguningtyas Wulandari⁽¹⁾, Sri Widiati^(2*), Bambang Priyono⁽³⁾

(1) UPTD Puskesmas Kedungmundu, Semarang, Central Java Master of Dental Science, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(2) Department of Dental Health Community and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(3) Department of Dental Health Community and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Conventional and electrical cigarette use could result in bad pathological conditions in the oral cavity, which may lead to periodontal diseases. This research aimed to determine the differences in the oral hygiene and clinical periodontal status between conventional and electric smokers. This research was a quantitative observational research and was designed as a cross-sectional study. The samples were selected using purposive sampling. A total of 110 respondents (n = 110) were involved, consisted of 60 conventional smokers and 50 electric smokers. Their oral hygiene status were examined using oral hygiene index simplified (OHI-S) measurement, while their periodontal tissue status were assessed using bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing pocket depth (PPD) measurements. The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test with a significance level of α < 0.05. The median and first quartile of OHI-S scores of the conventional smokers’ group were 2.7 and 2.2, while the electric smokers’ group was 2.2 and 1.4 respectively, with a significant value of p < 0.001. The median and first quartile BOP scores of the conventional smokers’ group were 36% and 29%, while the electric smokers’ group were 35% and 28% respectively, with a significant value of p = 0.750. The median and first quartile of PPD scores in the conventional smokers’ group were 3.2 and 2.7, while the electric smokers’ group were 3.1 and 2.6 respectively with a significant value of p = 0.765. Conventional smokers had worse oral hygiene status than electric smokers. Conventional and electric smokers did not have significant differences in periodontal health including gingival bleeding and poor pocket depth.

Keywords

conventional smokers; electric smokers; oral hygiene status; periodontal health

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. Kemenkes RI. Riset Kesehatan Dasar. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan Kementerian Kesehatan RI; Jakarta. 2018.

2. Anonim. Peraturan Pemerintah No. 109 tahun 2012 tentang Pengamanan Bahan yang Mengandung Zat Adiktif Berupa Produk Tembakau Bagi Kesehatan. Jakarta; Sekretaris Negara. 2012.

3. Tanuwihardja RK, Susanto AD. Rokok Elektronik (Electronic Cigarette). J Respir
Indo. 2012; 32(1): 53–61.

4. Bell K, Keane H. Nicotine control: e-cigarettes, smoking and addiction. Int J
Drug Policy. 2012; 23(3): 242–247.

5. Warnakulasuriya S, Dietrich T, Bornstein MM, Peidró E C, Preshaw PM, Walter C,
Wennstrom JL, Bergstrom J. Oral health risks of tobacco use and effects of cessation.
Int Dent J. 2010; 60(1): 7 – 30.

6. Nurul D. Peran Stres terhadap Kesehatan Jaringan Periodontal. Jakarta: EGC; 2010.

7. Diba CM, Bany ZU, Sunnati. Hubungan tingkat pengetahuan dampak merokok terhadap
kesehatan rongga mulut dengan status kebersihan rongga mulut (Remaja Desa Cot
Mesjid Kecamatan Lueng Bata Kota Banda Aceh). Journal Canius Denstistry. 2016; 4(1): 12 – 19.

8. Javed F, Abduljabbar T, Vohra F, Malmstrom H, Rahman I, Romanos GE. Comparison of
periodontal parameters and self-perceived oral symptoms among cigarette smokers, individuals vaping electronic cigarettes, and never-smokers. J Periodontal. 2017; 88(10): 1059 – 1065. doi: 10.1902/jop.2017.170197

9. Oberoi SS, Arora D. Tobacco smoking and its effect on the periodontium. J Dent Health Oral
Disord Ther. 2016; 5(5): 332-333. doi: 10.15406/jdhodt.2016.05.00169

10. Ratmini NK, Supariani NND. Hubungan merokok dengan calculus index pada remaja
di Br. Dukuh Pesirahan Denpasar Selatan tahun 2015. Jurnal Kesehatan Gigi. 2015; 3(2): 101–105.

11. Sumerti NN. Merokok dan efeknya terhadap kesehatan gigi dan rongga mulut. Jurnal
Kesehatan Gigi. 2016; 4(2): 49–58.

12. Oroh JNW, Suling PL, Zuliari K. Hubungan penggunaan rokok elektrik dengan status
kebersihan gigi dan mulut pada komunitas Manado vapers. Jurnal E-Gigi (eG). 2018;
6(2): 91–95. doi: 10.35790/eg.6.2.2018.20456

13. Ramadhan. Serba-Serbi Kesehatan Gigi dan Mulut. Jakarta: Bukini. 2010.

14. Rahayu C, Widiati S, Widyanti N. Hubungan antara pengetahuan, sikap, dan perilaku
terhadap pemeliharaan kebersihan gigi dan mulut dengan status kesehatan periodontal
pra lansia di posbindu Kecamatan Indihiang Kota Tasikmalaya. Majalah Kedokteran Gigi
Indonesia. 2014; 21(1): 27-32. doi: 10.22146/majkedgiind.8515

15. Mardiati E, Wiradona I, Subekti A. Pengaruh kebiasaan merokok terhadap kesehatan
rongga mulut pada remaja (cross sectional study pada pelajar SMK 4 Semarang). Jurnal
Link. 2013; 9(1): 437-443.

16. Alharthi SS, Binshabaib M, Akram Z, Rahman I, Romanos GE, Javed F. Impact of cigarette
smoking and vaping on the outcome of fullmouth ultrasonic scaling among patients with
gingival inflammation: a prospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23(6): 2751-2758.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2725-2

17. Pejčić A, Obradović A, Kesić L, Kojović, D. Smoking and periodontal disease a review.
Medicine and Biology. 2007; 14(2): 53-59.

18. Imasari T, Mu’arofah B, Pati BF. Korelasi perilaku merokok terhadap jumlah pertumbuhan bakteri kokus di Bandar Lor Kota Kediri. Jurnal Nusantara Medika. 2018; 3(1): 23-29.

19. Sundar IK, Javed F, Romanos GE, Rahman I. E-cigarettes and flavorings induce inflammatory and pro-senescence responses in oral epithelial cells and periodontal fibroblasts. Oncotarget. 2016; 7(47): 77196–77204. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12857

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.59681