Electronic cigarette use vs Non-smokers: DMFT/DMFS index (dental caries experience)
- Population
- Humans who use e-cigarettes (adolescents to adults) assessed for dental caries
- Intervention
- Electronic cigarette use
- Comparison
- Non-smokers
- Outcome
- DMFT/DMFS index (dental caries experience)
A meta-analysis of 3 studies compared DMFT/DMFS in e-cigarette users vs non-smokers, but the pooled effect appears only in Figure 3A (unavailable) and heterogeneity was very high (I2=98%); the effect of vaping on dental caries remains unclear (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
E-cigarette use (ENDS / vaping) vs Non-smokers Dental caries experience (DMFT/DMFS index) · Humans who use e-cigarettes (adolescents to adults) assessed for dental caries · Cross-sectional to 6 months, Clinical/community dental studies in several countries; caries assessed clinically or from national survey/health records/questionnaires A meta-analysis of 3 studies compared DMFT/DMFS in e-cigarette users vs non-smokers, but the pooled effect appears only in Figure 3A (unavailable) and heterogeneity was very high (I2=98%); the effect of vaping on dental caries remains unclear (ungraded). The effects of electronic smoking on dental caries and proinflammatory markers: a systematic review and… (2025) All outcomes | Cohen's d 0.93 [-1.11, 2.98] | 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.