Effect of tongue piercing on periodontal and peri‐implant health: A cross‐sectional case‐control study in adults

Abstract

Objectives The authors hypothesize that periodontal and peri‐implant inflammatory parameters are poorer in adult patients with tongue piercing compared with controls. The aim was to assess the influence of tongue piercing on periodontal and peri‐implant health status in adults. Methods Test and control groups comprised of individuals with and without tongue piercing, respectively. A questionnaire was used to collect information about gender, age, duration of tongue piercing and implants in function, jaw location of the implant, reasoning for wearing the tongue ornament, and oral hygiene and ornament cleaning habits. Full‐mouth and peri‐implant plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), clinical attachment loss (CAL), probing depth (PD) and marginal/crestal bone loss (MBL and CBL, respectively) on mesial and distal surfaces of teeth/implants were recorded. The material (plastic or metal) from which, the bar and ball‐ends of the ornament were fabricated was also recorded. A p < 0.01 was considered statistically significant. Results Forty‐eight and 49 individuals were included in the test and control groups, respectively. There was no difference in PI, GI, PD, CAL and MBL (mesial and distal) among individuals in the test and control groups. In the test group, peri‐implant PI (p < 0.01), GI (p < 0.01), PD (p < 0.01) and mesial (p < 0.01) and distal (p < 0.01) CBL were significantly higher in the anterior mandible compared with implants in other jaw locations. In the control group, there was no difference in peri‐implant PI, GI, PD and CBL around implants placed in both jaws. Conclusion Wearing tongue piercings could increase the risks of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases particularly in the mandibular anterior segment.

Impact of oral piercings on periodontal health – A systematic review

“…In one study, the education level in the test and control group was reported. 30 The number of patients in the control group that declared to have accomplished university degrees was about six times higher compared to the test group. It has been observed that a loweducation level is a risk factor for several oral diseases including periodontitis.…”

“…Periodontal outcome parameters, i.e., PPD, CAL, gingival recession, BOP and PI, were reported as mean values 12,16,25,27,28,30 and/ or as percentages of teeth or sites with increased values. 16,26,29 Against the background that oral piercings may lead to very localized periodontal destruction, the report of percentages seems to be more reliable than pooled data in the form of mean values.…”

“…25,26,28,29 One study did not evaluate a potential association between wearing time of the piercing and periodontal outcomes. 30 Ibraheem et al 30 showed that tongue piercings made of bioplastic material had poorer periodontal destructive potential compared to those from stainless steel. In contrast, bacterial colonization was shown to be higher in tongue piercings made from stainless steel than in bioplastic materials.…”

“…Finally, eight studies, published between 2007 and 2022, fulfilled the inclusion criteria and thus remained for analysis. [25][26][27][28][29][30]…”

“…Ibraheem et al defined a minimum wearing time of 12 months resulting in a smaller variability of time. 30 In four out of eight studies, piercings-related habits were reported and conducted by most of the patients. The number of examined teeth differed between studies.…”