Articles
Departement of Periodontology Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm-Huddinge, Suède
Tobacco smoking is at present considered as the single greatest environmental factor for disease and premature death in the western world. An impressive amount of scientific data has been accumulated demonstrating an unequivocal association between smoking and morbidity (Bartecchi et al., 1994). Concerning lungcancer and coronary heart disease the relationship may be considered as causual (
The role of tobacco, particularly tobacco smoking, as a risk factor for periodontal disease has been extensively studied for many years. Clinical and epidemiological studies from recent years have demonstrated a clear association between smoking and the prevalence and severity of periodontitis, suggesting smoking to be an important risk factor for periodontitis. Risk estimates have further calculated the smoking attributable risk to be more than doubled. Moreover the outcome of periodontal therapy is inferior for smokers, and accordingly there is a heavy overrepresentation of smokers among refractory cases.
Reasons for smokers poorer periodontal health are not fully understood, but defect numbers or functions of immonuglobulins, neutrophils, fibroblasts or cytokines may play a role.
Smokeless tobacco may develop local gingival recession but is currently not proposed as a risk factor for periodontitis.
In conclusion, tobacco-smoking is associated with a large proportion of periodontitis cases and constitutes a major dental health problem. Therefore smoking cessation must be considered as an important part of periodontal therapy.
Tobacco smoking is at present considered as the single greatest environmental factor for disease and premature death in the western world. An impressive amount of scientific data has been accumulated demonstrating an unequivocal association between smoking and morbidity (Bartecchi et al., 1994). Concerning lungcancer and coronary heart disease the relationship may be considered as causual (US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1979 ; US Department of Health and Human Services, 1982).
There is also increasing evidence from recent years that tobacco smoking is closely linked to periodontal disease and may act as a major risk factor (Haber et al., 1993 ; Bergström and Preber, 1994 ; AAP, Position paper, 1996 ; Zambon et al., 1996 ; Salvi et al., 1997). The following review article will in a conscise form summarize our present knowledge on different aspects of tobacco consumption and periodontal disease.
Although a possible connection between smoking and acute necrotizising ulcerative gingivitis (ANUG) was proposed already more than a century ago (Bergeron, 1859), the first relation in modern time between smoking and periodontal disease was demonstrated by Stammers (1944) and Pindborg (1947) who reported smokers to have a higher prevalence of ANUG than non-smokers. This finding has been confirmed in later studies (Goldhaber and Giddon, 1964 ; Kardachi and Clarke, 1974) and recently a similar relationship has been reported between smoking and ANUG-like lesions in HIV-infected individuals (Swango et al., 1991). The results from these studies are conclusive suggesting a clear association between smoking and ANUG.
Concerning the relationship between smoking and chronic gingivitis results from earlier epidemiologic studies have been contradictory. Some studies have reported less or no difference in gingival inflammation when smokers were compared to non-smokers (Ainamo, 1971 ; Bergström and Floderus-Myrhed, 1983 ; Feldman et al., 1983) while other studies have reported a higher degree of gingival inflammation in smokers (Arno et al., 1958 ; Alexander, 1970 ; Preber and Kant, 1973 ; Preber et al., 1980). These later results are not surprising since smokers usually are found to harbour greater amount of plaque and/or calculus than non-smokers (Arno et al., 1958, Kristoffersen, 1970 ; Alexander, 1970 ; Ainamo, 1971 ; Sheiham, 1971 ; Preber and Kant, 1973 ; Lavstedt, 1975 ; Preber et al., 1980 ; Feldman et al., 1983 ; Ismail et al., 1983 ; MacGregor, 1984). Consequently much of smokers´ excess gingivitis might be explained by a greater amount of plaque primarily associated with an inferior oral hygiene (MacGregor, 1984 ; MacGregor and Rugg-Gunn, 1984). Recent studies that have controlled for plaque levels indicate that the gingival inflammation in smokers is clinically suppressed i.e. with similar amounts of plaque, smokers will not exhibit gingivitis as clearly as non-smokers (Bergström and Floderus-Myrhed, 1983 ; Preber and Bergström, 1985a, 1986 ; Bergström and Preber, 1986 ; Bergström et al., 1988 ; Bergström, 1991). Furthermore from studies with an experimental gingivitis model, where the subjects have refrained from oral hygiene procedures for 3 to 4 weeks, smokers exhibited less gingival bleeding in spite of the same level of plaque accumulation (Bergström and Preber, 1986 ; Danielsen ).
These results which suggest a lower bleeding propensity for smokers (fig. 1) might not be surprising according to the well known effect of nicotine excerting local vasoconstriction on peripheral circulation (Suter et al., 1983). However they may be of clinical significance ; since bleeding on probing is considered an important clinical sign of periodontal disease and also acts as a criterium for periodontal treatment planning. Consequently if smokers´ lower bleeding propensity is not taken into consideration, there is an obvious risk for under-estimation and under-treatment of periodontal disease in smokers.
Earlier epidemiological studies of a cross-sectional design were not conclusive regarding a possible relationship between smoking and periodontal disease (Ludwick and Massler, 1952 ; Arno et al., 1958 ; Solomon et al., 1968 ; Summers and Oberman, 1968 ; Sheiman, 1971). However it should be borne in mind that although the reliability of these earlier studies may be regarded as rather low, they still have gathered important information and prepared the way for future studies.
During the last 15 years a number of well controlled studies on larger groups of populations using modern epidemiologic and statistical methods have unanimously demonstrated a clear relationship between smoking and periodontitis (Ismail et al., 1983 ; Feldman et al., 1983 ; Preber and Bergström, 1986 ; Bergström and Eliasson, 1987 ; Feldman et al., 1987 ; Goultshin et al., 1990 ; Ismail et al., 1990 ; Haber and Kent, 1992 ; Haber et al., 1993 ; Bergström and Preber, 1994 ; Grossi et al., 1994 ; Linden and Mullally, 1994 ; Grossi et al., 1995 ; Martinez-Canut et al., 1995 ; Mullally and Linden, 1996 ; Zambon et al., 1996). The results from these studies suggest smokers to have an inreased prevalence and severity of periodontitis, as reported by greater marginal bone loss, deeper periodontal pockets, more severe clinical attachment loss and more teeth with furcation problems (fig. 2 and 3). Concerning smokers´ greater radiographic bone loss, the difference will remain even after controlling for dental plaque, indicating an effect per se of smoking (Bergström and Eliasson, 1987 ; Bergström and coll., 1991).
Risk assessment has become increasingly important in the prevention of chronic diseases and has recently been applied to periodontal disease.
In 2 case-control studies, of a similar design, performed on samples of periodontitis patients (Preber and Bergström, 1986 ; Haber and Kent, 1992), the relative risk for smokers to attract the disease was calculated. Both studies reported the smoking attributable risk (odds ratio) to be between 2-2.5. Grossi et al. (1994) reported risk estimates of a similar magnitude (odds ratio = 2.4) on a large scale epidemiologic survey including 1 400 subjects. For severe periodontitis, the attributable risk increases to odds ratios between 5-14 depending of the level of disease and the smoking exposure (Bergström, 1989 ; Haber and Kent, 1992 ; Linden and Mullally, 1994). Attributable risk estimates from recent studies are presented in table l.
Although an attributable risk of a magnitude around 2 may not look too impressive, it should be borne in mind, that the number of extra cases as a consequence of smoking still is great, since periodontal disease is considered a common disease.
Current opinion of the pathogenisis of periodontal disease is that a small group of bacteria are mainly responsible for the initiation and progression of disease and that bacterial activation of host defence mechanisms result in tissue destruction (Taichman and Lindhe, 1989 ; Williams, 1990 ; Socransky and Haffajee, 1991 ; Page and Kornman, 1997). Tobacco smoking might interact both with the microflora and the host response.
Many epidemiological and clinical studies have observed smokers to harbour more plaque and calculus than non-smokers (Arno et al., 1958 ; Kristoffersen, 1970 ; Alexender, 1970 ; Ainamo, 1971 ; Sheiham, 1971 ; Preber and Kant, 1973 ; Lavstedt, 1975 ; Preber and coll., 1980 ; Feldman et al., 1983 ; Ismail et al., 1983 ; MacGregor, 1984). These observations have supported the deletorious effects of tobacco-smoking on the periodontal tissues to be of an indirect origin, i.e. depending on a heavier amount of plaque in the smokers. However clinical studies have reported a similar plaque accumulation rate in smokers and non-smokers (Bastian and Waite, 1978 ; Swenson, 1979 ; Bergström, 1981 ; Bergström and Preber, 1986), thereby suggesting smokers´ greater amount of plaque depending of an inferior oral hygiene (MacGregor, 1984).
Currently periodontal diseases are looked upon as basically specific infections (Slots et al., 1986 ; Slots et Listgarten, 1988). Human periodontitis is initiated and perpetuated by a small group of predominantly anaerobic, gramnegativ bacteria that colonize the subgingival area (Page and Kornman, 1997). In accordance smoking might be expected to exert its effects by promoting such infections. In a recent study (Preber et al., 1992), the interrelationships between smoking and some anaerobic periopathogens were described in a sample of patients with severe periodontitis. No differences were found between smokers and non-smokers regarding the occurrence, relative frequency or various combinations of A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis and P. intermedia. The results have been confirmed in other studies (Stoltenberg et al., 1993 ; Preber et al., 1995).
However, in another recent study (Zambon et al., 1996) including a sample of 1 400 subjects from a general population, microbiological analysis demonstrated that smokers harbored significantly higher levels of B. forsythus than non-smokers.
Since smoking does not appear to have any major effect on the periodontal bacterial flora, it appears more likely that smoking might influence the periodontal host response.
Smoking has important effects on the immune system. Smokers have demonstrated decreased immunoglobulin levels of IgG, IgA and IgM, but increased levels of IgE (Holt and Keast, 1977 ; Gerrard et al., 1980 ; Johnson et al., 1990). Lower T-suppressor CD8 lymphocyte cell counts and higher counts of other lymphocytes have been reported for smokers (Mili et al., 1991). Lymphocyte DNA adducts have been reported higher for smokers (Savela and Hemminki, 1991).
It is also well known that smoking impairs the functions of the oral neutrophils. Both the viability, chemotaxis and phagocytosis are influenced (Eichel et Sharick, 1969 ; Thomas et al., 1973 ; Kenney et al., 1977 ; Hughes et al., 1985 ; Mac Farlane, 1992).
The pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1 and TNF-alfa are considered key regulators of the host response to microbial infection. Recently a specific periodontitis associated IL-1 genotype was reported (Kornman et al., 1997), which was correlated with high levels of IL-1 production in non-smokers. However in smokers, severe disease was not correlated with the genotype, which indicates that the genetic association was evident only when smokers were excluded. This finding further confirms the importance of smoking as a risk factor for periodontitis. In another recent study (Boström et al., 1998) smokers demonstrated higher levels of TNF-alfa in a 5 year-follow up study after periodontal surgery, which might indicate TNF-alfa as a marker for impaired healing in smokers.
The exact mechanisms by which cigarette smoking influences the periodontal tissues are not known. Besides possible specific effects from periopathogenic bacteria and by immunosuppression, there might be cytotoxic effects from nicotine on the fibroblast function. As with other tissues responses, a normal fibroblast function is critical for the maintenance of periodontal tissues and for optimal wound healing. It has been reported that nicotine can be stored and released from periodontal fibroblasts (Hanes et al., 1991) and that nicotine inhibits the growth of gingival fibroblasts and their production of fibronectin and collagen (Tipton and Dabbous 1995). However, it remains unclear whether these nicotine loaded cells attach better (Peacock et al., 1993) or worse (Raulin et al., 1989) to different surfaces. Presumabily, these in vitro findings on the effects of nicotine on the fibroblast function may also occur in vivo, and thereby also influence the healing potential of the periodontium.
Tobacco smoking has often been cited as an important contributing factor for poor wound healing and postoperative complications following surgical interventions (Mosely et Finseth, 1977 ; Rees et al., 1984 ; Nolan et al., 1985). Smoking has also detrimental effect on implants survival (Bain and Moy, 1993 ; Gorman et al., 1994).
Cigarette smoking seems to adversely influence the outcome of various modalities of periodontal therapy. Concerning non-surgical periodontal therapy including scaling and rootplaning, there are only short-term studies available evaluating the results from 1 to 3 months after active treatment. However, in spite of a comparatively short period of healing the result was inferior for smokers in all studies. Probing depths reductions in the maxillary anterior region were reported significantly lower in smokers as compared to non-smokers already 1 month after treatment (Preber and Bergström, 1985a). In a subsequent study, gingival bleeding on probing was significantly less reduced in smokers at the same time of observation (Preber and Bergström, 1985b). With an observation period extended to 2 months, the differences in probing depth reduction were still greater (Preber et al., 1995). The number of diseased sites was reduced by 40 % in smokers as against 57 % in non-smokers, although there were no differences in the composition of subgingival flora (A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis, P. intermedia) either before or after treatment between the smoking groups. In a recent study (Kinane and Radvar, 1997) with an observation period of 6 weeks, 3 locally delivered antimicrobial systems as adjuncts to scaling and rootplaning was compared between smokers and non-smokers. The improvement in both probing depths and attachment levels was significantly greater in the non-smoker patients. Grossi et al. (1995) in a study comprising 1 400 subjects from a general population further confirmed the results with the observation period extended to 3 months, displaying an inferior pocket reduction and attachment level gain for smokers. However concerning the subgingival microflora more smokers than non-smokers were positive for P. gingivalis and B. forsythus after treatment.
Concerning periodontal surgical therapy, in a 12 month follow-up study, the probing depth reduction was significantly less for smokers compared to non-smokers, 0.8 and 1.3 mm respectively (Preber and Bergström, 1990).
In 2 recent long-term studies, the treatment results following 4 different treatment modalities, surgical as well as nonsurgical, were evaluated after 6 and 7 years respectively (Ah et al., 1994 ; Kaldahl et al., 1996). The outcome of therapy was significant inferior for smokers concerning pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment gain for the entire observation period. There was also a trend towards a dose-response relation, indicating an inferior outcome for heavy smokers as compared to light smokers, and for light smokers as compared to non-smokers or past smokers. Boström ) in another long term study, 5 years after periodontal surgery, not only confirmed earlier observations on inferior pocket reductions in heavy smokers but also reported on significant differences in radiographic bone gain. Smokers did not exhibit any gain in periodontal bone height as contrasted to both non-smokers and past smokers who displayed significant gains over time.
Results from studies on periodontal regenerative surgery suggest that smoking also adversely affects this kind of surgical treatment outcome. Both guided tissue regeneration procedures, regenerative procedures using bonegrafts and soft tissue graft procedures report significantly inferior outcome for smokers (Miller, 1987 ; Tonetti et al., 1995 ; Rosen et al., 1996 ; Trombelli and Scabbia, 1997).
It is well known that some patients do not respond as expected to the best of periodontal therapy. These non-responders or " down-hill " patients exhibiting continuing attachment loss after treatment are usually classified as refractory periodontitis cases. Although many clinicans have experienced an excess number of smokers in this category, up to now only few studies have considered the influence of smoking in refractory periodontitis. However recent studies have shown a heavy overrepresentation of smokers among refractory cases (MacFarlane et al., 1992 ; Bergström and Blomlöf, 1992).
At present there are no studies reporting the effects of smoking cessation on periodontitis patients. However both the prevalence and the severity of periodontitis is greater in current smokers as compared to former smokers as compared to non-smokers (Bergström et al., 1991 ; Dunford et al., 1991 ; Haber et al., 1993 ; Grossi et al., 1994 ; Grossi et al., 1995 ; Haber and Kent, 1992). Bolin ) have reported on the effect of changed smoking habits on marginal bone loss. In a longitudinal study 349 individuals were examined in 1970 and in 1980 respectively concerning radiographic marginal bone loss. 44 subjects gave upp smoking during this 10-year period, showing significantly less bone loss, as compared to those 139 who smoked regularly during the period.
Extrapolation of the results from these studies would suggest smoking cessation as an important factor of periodontal therapy. However clinical studies with smoking cessation groups are needed to further substantiate these results.
Smokeless tobacco products, such as snuff and chewing tobacco, and their effects on the periodontal tissues have not been as extensively studied as tobacco smoking and periodontal disease. Furthermore, published clinical studies on smokeless tobacco, are usually performed on young subjects, implying a comparatively short period of tobacco consumption. Smokeless tobacco and snuff have long been associated with local gingival recession and oral leukoplakia (Weintrab and Burt, 1987 ; Robertson et al., 1990 ; Wray and McGuirt, 1993). In a recent case-control study, smokeless tobacco users reported increased gingival index scores and elevated prostaglandin E2 levels in gingival crevicular fluid at placement sites of snuff (Johnsson et al., 1996). This might indicate tobacco induced synthesis of prostaglandin E2, which might play a role for tobacco related oral disease.
However data are currently insufficient to support an association between the use of smokeless tobacco and generalized or severe periodontal disease.
Epidemiological and clinical studies strongly supports the concept of tobacco smoking as a major risk factor for periodontal disease. Attributable risk estimates have calculated a considerable over risk for smokers. Accordingly cigarette smoking affects the prevalence and severity of adult periodontitis, refractary periodontitis and ANUG. In studies where plaque levels have been adjusted for, smokers have reported greater probing depths, attachment levels and radiographic marginal bone loss, indicating an independent effect of smoking. Smoking exerts a suppressed and masking effect on gingival symptoms of inflammation. At present no studies support an association between smokeless tobacco and generalized periodontitis. However gingival recession may occur at sites of placement. Clinical studies have also demonstrated that smoking adversely affects the outcome of different kinds of periodontal therapy.
Published studies on periodontitis patients have not demonstrated any major differences of the periodontal microflora in smokers compared to non-smokers. Smoking may affect various forms of the immune response system. Several studies have shown a dose-response relation between the severity of periodontal disease and the amount of smoking. Although, there are no studies at present on the effect of smoking cessation, results from recent clinical and epidemiological studies strongly suggest that smoking cessation may beneficially influence periodontal disease progression and improve results of periodontal therapy.
Demande de tirés à part
Hans PREBER, Department of Periodontology, Karolinska Institutet, Box 4064, S-141 04 HUDDINGE - SWEDEN. e-mail : ham.preber@ofa.aki.se.