| Literature DB >> 21655133 |
Takashi Hanioka1, Miki Ojima, Keiko Tanaka, Mito Yamamoto.
Abstract
This review evaluated evidence of the relationship between secondhand smoke (SHS) and dental caries in children in epidemiological studies. Relevant literature was searched and screened, and the methodological quality was assessed. The search yielded 42 citations. High-quality studies including one cohort format and 14 case-control format studies were selected. Early childhood caries was examined in 11 studies. The independent association of SHS was significant in 10 studies, and the strength was mostly weak to moderate. One study did not select SHS as a significant variable. Three studies reported decreases in the risk of previous exposure, and the association was not significant. Dose-response relationships were evident in five studies. Permanent teeth were examined in seven studies. Five studies reported significant associations, which were mostly weak. The risk of previous exposure remained similar to that of current exposure, and a dose-response relationship was not evident in one study. The overall evidence for the causal association in early childhood caries is possible regarding epidemiological studies, and the evidence of permanent teeth and the effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy were insufficient. The results warrant further studies of deciduous teeth using a cohort format and basic studies regarding the underlying mechanism.Entities:
Keywords: causal assessment; dental caries; motivation of smoking cessation; parental smoking; perinatal smoking; secondhand smoke
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21655133 PMCID: PMC3108123 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph8051503
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1.Number of studies according to the processes of searching, selection, and evaluation of literature.
Characteristics of the included studies
| Bolin, 1997 [ | CS | Logistic RA | PHOs |
| Williams, 2000 [ | CS | Logistic RA | PHO |
| Aligne, 2003 [ | CS | Logistic RA [ | PHOs |
| Shenkin, 2004 [ | CS | Logistic RA | PHOs |
| Shulman, 2005 [ | CS | Poisson RA | ND |
| Tanaka, 2006 [ | CS | Logistic RA | PHOs |
| Iida, 2007 [ | CS | Logistic RA | PHOs |
| Ayo-Yusuf, 2007 [ | CS | Logistic RA | PHOs |
| Hanioka, 2008 [ | CS | Logistic RA | PHOs |
| Aida, 2008 [ | CS | Multilevel RA | ND |
| Leroy, 2008 [ | CS | Logistic RA | OHCs |
| Tanaka, 2009 [ | CS | Binomial RA | PHOs |
| Julihn, 2009 [ | Cohort data from the SMBR | Logistic RA [ | PHOs |
| Tanaka, 2010 [ | CS | Binomial RA | PHOs |
| Ditmyer, 2010 [ | CS | Logistic RA | PHOs |
SES,
cross-sectional,
regression analysis,
public health organization,
oral health company,
National Diet and Nutrition Survey,
variables entered in the final model,
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
adjusted for the statistically significant variables in another model,
not described,
Iowa Fluoride Study,
National Nutrition Survey,
National Survey of Dental Diseases,
Fukuoka Child Health Study,
Swedish Medical Birth Register,
Swedish National Registers.
Methodological quality assessed using the modified NOS.
| Bolin, 1997 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | |
| Williams, 2000 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 9 |
| Aligne, 2003 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | |
| Shenkin, 2004 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | ||
| Shulman, 2005 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | ||
| Tanaka, 2006 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | ||
| Iida, 2007 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | ||
| Ayo-Yusuf, 2007 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | ||
| Hanioka, 2008 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | |
| Aida, 2008 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 | |
| Leroy, 2008 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 9 |
| Tanaka, 2009 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | ||
| Julihn, 2009 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | ||
| Tanaka, 2010 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 9 |
| Ditmyer, 2010 [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | ||
case-control format,
cohort format,
for studies with case-control/cohort format: 1, definition of case/representativeness of exposed cohort; 2, representativeness of case/selection of non-exposed cohort; 3, selection of controls/ascertainment of exposure; 4, definition of controls/demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study; 6, ascertainment of exposure/assessment of outcome; 7, same method for cases and controls/follow-up period of one year or more, 8, non-response rate of less than 25%/adequacy of follow up of cohorts;
5, study controls for oral health behavior and SES or dental visit.
Relationship between SHS exposure and caries of deciduous teeth sorted by age of children.
| Leroy, 2008 [ | 3 (1,038) | HS | 30.9 | dmft | 6.7 | 1.98 (0.68, 5.76) |
| 5 (1,093) | HS | 30.2 | dmft | 30.2 | 3.36 (1.49, 7.58) | |
| Aida, 2008 [ | 3 (3,086) | PS, MS | 20.4 | dmft | 31.3 | 2.14 (1.59, 2.87) |
| Hanioka, 2008 [ | 3 (711) | PS, MS | 34.5 | dmft | 35.7 | 2.25 (1.51, 3.37) |
| Tanaka, 2009 [ | 3 (2,015) | MSP only | 2.3 | dmft | 20.8 | 1.78 (1.16, 2.75) |
| HS only | 31.8 | dmft | 20.8 | 1.26 (1.04, 1.53) | ||
| Both | 10.7 | dmft | 20.8 | 1.40 (1.08, 1.81) | ||
| Iida, 2007 [ | 2–5 (1,563) | MSP | 14.5 | dfs | 27.2 | 1.68 (1.01, 2.79) |
| Williams, 2000 [ | 3–4.5 (729) | MS | 33 | dmft | 25.2 | 1.54 (1.07, 2.21) |
| Shulman, 2005 [ | 2–6 (4,207) | MSP | 5.2 | dfs count | NA | Not significant |
| Bolin, 1997 [ | 5 (1,423) | MS | 36.8 | dmfs | 46.9 | 1.52 (1.18, 1.95) |
| Shenkin, 2004 [ | 4–7 (637) | HS | 10.2 | dfs | 26.2 | 3.38 (1.68, 6.79) |
| Aligne, 2003 [ | 4–11 (3,531) | SCL | 55.4 | ds | 25.7 | 1.8 (1.2, 2.7) |
| Fs | 33.2 | 1.4 (1.1, 2.0) | ||||
| Tanaka, 2010 [ | 6–15 (13,863) | HS | 15.9 | dft | 78.5 | 1.06 (1.04, 1.08) |
definition of secondhand smoke: HS, household smoking; PS, paternal smoking; MS, maternal smoking; MSP, maternal smoking during pregnancy; SCL, serum cotinine level;
definition of dental caries: t, tooth; s, surface;
odds ratio;
confidence interval;
calculated by reviewer based on data in the table in the original literature;
prevalence ratio;
incidence density ratio;
household smoking ≥15 cigarettes daily.
Relationship between SHS exposure and caries of permanent teeth sorted by age of children.
| Tanaka, 2006 [ | 1–14 (925) | HS | 42.5 | dft, DFT | 61.2 | 1.26 (0.93, 1.69) |
| Aligne, 2003 [ | 4–11 (2,930) | SCL | 54.2 | DS | 9.0 | 1.2 (0.8, 1.9) |
| FS | 18.9 | 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) | ||||
| Tanaka, 2010 [ | 6–15 (20,253) | HS | 16.5 | DFT | 55.1 | 1.03 (1.00, 1.06) |
| 6–15 (20,703) | dft, DFT | 83.0 | 1.04 (1.03, 1.06) | |||
| Bolin, 1997 [ | 12 (1,265) | MS | 31.4 | DMFS | 62.8 | 1.40 (1.11, 1.78) |
| Ayo-Yusuf, 2007 [ | 14.6 | HS | 36.9 | DT | 16.4 | 2.02 (1.22, 3.33) |
| Julihn, 2009 [ | 13, 19 | MSP | 21.0 | ACI | 38.6 | 1.33 (1.22, 1.44) |
| Ditmyer, 2010 [ | 12–19 (4,169) | HS | 34.6 | DMFT | NA | 1.42 (1.03, 1.53) |
definition of secondhand smoke: SCL, serum cotinine level; HS, household smoking; MS, maternal smoking; MSP, maternal smoking during pregnancy;
definition of dental caries: T, tooth; S, surface;
odds ratio;
confidence interval;
household smoking ≥15 cigarettes daily;
prevalence ratio;
calculated by reviewer based on data in the table in the original literature;
average of high school students;
decayed second molar;
cohort format between two ages;
approximal caries increment;
not available because of exclusion of middle group regarding severity of dental caries (4.0 > DMFT > 0).
Effect of previous exposure to SHS on dental caries.
| Leroy, 2008 [ | 3 | HS | dmft | OR | 1.71 (0.30, 9.65) | 1.98 (0.68, 5.76) |
| 5 | HS | dmft | OR | 0.55 (0.19, 1.65) | 3.36 (1.49, 7.58) | |
| Tanaka, 2009 [ | 3 | MSP | dmft | PR | 1.21 (0.91, 1.59) | 1.43 (1.07, 1.91) |
| HS | dmft | PR | 1.23 (0.88, 1.71) | 1.25 (1.04, 1.50) | ||
| Tanaka, 2010 [ | 6–15 | HS | dft | PR | 1.02 (0.99, 1.06) | 1.06 (1.04, 1.08) |
| HS | DFT | PR | 1.03 (1.00, 1.06) | 1.03 (1.00, 1.06) | ||
definition of SHS: HS, household smoking; MSP, maternal smoking during pregnancy;
definition of dental caries;
OR, odds ratio; PR, prevalence ratio;
confidence interval.
Dose-response relationships between SHS exposure and dental caries.
| Hanioka, | 3 | PS | None | Father only | Both parents | |
| 2008 [ | dmft | 1.00 | 1.52 (1.01, 2.30) | 2.25 (1.51, 3.37) | ||
| Aida, | 3 | PS | None | Either parent | Both parents | |
| 2008 [ | dmft | 1.00 | 1.40 (1.15, 1.71) [ | 2.14 (1.59, 2.87) [ | ||
| Tanaka, | 3 | MS | None | 0.1–17.9 | 18.0– | |
| 2009 [ | dmft | 1.00 | 1.16 (0.93, 1.44) | 1.33 (1.09, 1.63) | ||
| Aligne, | 4–11 | SCL | <0.05 | 0.05–<0.2 | 0.2–1.0 | >1.0 |
| 2003 [ | ds | 1.0 | 1.3 (0.8, 2.3) | 2.2 (1.3, 3.6) | 2.3 (1.4, 3.9) | |
| fs | 1.0 | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) | 1.6 (1.0, 2.4) | 1.5 (1.0, 2.3) | ||
| Tanaka, | 6–15 | HS | None | 0.1–2.9 | 3.0–6.9 | ≥7.0 |
| 2010 [ | dft | 1.00 | 1.04 (1.00, 1.09) | 1.12 (1.07, 1.17) | 1.11 (1.06, 1.16) | |
| DFT | 1.00 | 1.12 (1.06, 1.20) | 1.18 (1.12, 1.26) | 1.17 (1.11, 1.24) | ||
definition of SHS: PS, parental smoking; MS, maternal smoking; SCL, serum cotinine level; HS, household smoking;
definition of dental caries;
odds ratio;
calculated by reviewer based on data in the table in the original literature;
pack-months;
prevalence ratio;
ng/mL;
pack-years.
Summary of results to evaluate the causal association between SHS and dental caries.
| Deciduous tooth | Strength of association | Strong (2), moderate (5), weak and moderate (2), weak (1), no association (1) | Moderate to strong evidence for weak to moderate association | There was no control group in current smokers in natural experiment. | Possible evidence |
| Natural experiment | Smaller effect size and no association (3) in previous exposure group | Strong evidence for natural experiment | Natural experiment and dose-response relationship were reported from two countries. Cohort study was not conducted. | ||
| Dose-response relationship | Obvious relationship between level of exposure and the effect size (5) | Strong evidence for dose-response relationship. | |||
| Permanent tooth | Strength of association | Moderate (1), weak (5 | Moderate evidence for weak association | Only one study reported results of natural experiment and dose-response relationship. | Insufficient evidence |
| Natural experiment | Effect size was similar in previous and current exposure groups (1) | Limited evidence for natural experiment | |||
| Dose-response relationship | Relationship between level of exposure and the effect size was not clear (1) | Limited evidence for natural experiment | |||
one study with cohort format.
Figure 2.Summary of the biological mechanism of SHS directly or indirectly affecting dental caries in children according to the traditional explanation of the etiology of dental caries.