Electronic cigarette use vs Non-smokers: Untreated dental caries and caries risk
- Population
- Humans who use e-cigarettes (adolescents to adults) assessed for dental caries
- Intervention
- Electronic cigarette use
- Comparison
- Non-smokers
- Outcome
- Untreated dental caries and caries risk
Across individual cross-sectional studies, e-cigarette users tended to have more untreated caries and higher caries risk than non-smokers (per-study OR ~2.0-4.2), but results were not pooled (ungraded, narrative).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
E-cigarette use (ENDS / vaping) vs Non-smokers Untreated dental caries and caries risk · Humans who use e-cigarettes (adolescents to adults) assessed for dental caries · Cross-sectional, Clinical/community dental studies in several countries; caries assessed clinically or from national survey/health records/questionnaires Across individual cross-sectional studies, e-cigarette users tended to have more untreated caries and higher caries risk than non-smokers (per-study OR ~2.0-4.2), but results were not pooled (ungraded, narrative). The effects of electronic smoking on dental caries and proinflammatory markers: a systematic review and… (2025) All outcomes | Narrative synthesis (not meta-analyzed). E-cigarette users had more untreated caries and higher caries risk than non-smokers in individual studies: Vemulapalli 2021 untreated-caries OR 2.04 (non-smokers as reference);… | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The effects of electronic smoking on dental caries and proinflammatory markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2025 All outcomes | September 2024 (initial search April 2024, updated September 2024) | 41 | Not applicable |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.