Enhanced penetration of nitrosonornicotine across oral mucosa in the presence of ethanol

Squier, Christopher A.; Cox, Patrick; Hall, B.K.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0714.1986.tb00623.x

Cited by 84 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence supports the hypothesis that the local permeabilizing effects of alcohol that facilitates the penetration of tobacco-specific carcinogens across oral mucosa may explain the synergy between tobacco and alcohol. Squier et al (54) showed that the penetration of nitrosonornicotine across the oral mucosa in the presence of nicotine is enhanced by alcohol. Du et al (55) and Howie et al (56) have shown that approximately 15% to 25% ethanol alone increased the permeability of the oral mucosa to tobacco carcinogens, such as N-nitrosonornicotine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glutathione S-Transferase Polymorphisms and the Synergy of Alcohol and Tobacco in Oral, Pharyngeal, and Laryngeal Carcinoma

Peters

McClean

Marsit

et al. 2006

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigations of the ability of polymorphisms in the GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 genes to alter susceptibility to head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have examined gene-environment interaction in their detoxification of tobacco-associated carcinogens. Little work has been done to ask if these variant genes also modify the interaction of tobacco and alcohol in the development of HNSCC. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a case-control study, enrolling 692 incident cases of HNSCC and 753 population controls. Information about lifetime tobacco and alcohol use was ascertained through questionnaires, and genotypes for GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 were determined from constitutional DNA. Genotype frequencies were compared among cases and controls, and the association between genotypes and tobacco use was evaluated on cancer risk through logistic regression. Deletion of GSTM1 was associated with an increased risk for HNSCC [odds ratio (OR), 1.3; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.0-1.6]. GSTT1 deletion was associated with a slight decreased HNSCC risk (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0). Among those with GSTM1 present, the OR of cancer for heavy smoking was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.6-4.3) compared with 4.2 for those with the GSTM1 deleted (95% CI, 2.6-6.7). The combination of consuming 10 to 20 alcohol drinks weekly and smoking >45 pack-years was associated with a 13-fold elevated risk (OR, 12.6; 95% CI,2) among the GSTM1 deleted subjects compared with an OR of 3.6 (95% CI, 1.5-8.7) among the GSTM1 present individuals. These data (showing that the GSTM1 deletion affects on the tobacco and alcohol synergy) suggest that the interaction of these carcinogens is, at least in part, driven by alcohol, enhancing the carcinogenic action of tobacco smoke. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(11):2196 -202)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glutathione S-Transferase Polymorphisms and the Synergy of Alcohol and Tobacco in Oral, Pharyngeal, and Laryngeal Carcinoma

Peters

McClean

Marsit

et al. 2006

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, studies have demonstrated that tobacco and alcohol products interact synergistically and increase each other's harmful effects. 2,3 The dehydrating effect of alcohol on cell walls enhances the ability of tobacco carcinogens to penetrate tissues. It is important to note, however, that a key difficulty in the study of tobacco and alcohol as risk factors is that most head and neck cancer patients have used both products.…”

Section: Summary Review/orthodontics Oral Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic status and head and neck cancer

Al-Dakkak¹

2010

Evid Based Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incidence of head and neck cancers continues to rise in the UK, especially in Scotland. The use of tobacco products, together with heavy alcohol consumption, are the main risk factors for these cancers. Furthermore, infection with the human papilloma virus (HPV), especially HPV16, has been strongly linked to the disease. The association between head and neck cancers and socioeconomic factors remains under-researched and poorly understood, and, therefore, this study is very relevant. Conway and colleagues investigated components of socioeconomic status and their impact on the risk of head and neck cancers in a case-control study. The selection criteria of cases and controls were rigorous. Only histologically-confirmed incident cancer cases were included, and controls were populationbased. Furthermore, the study captured both individual and areabased risk measures.Results showed that individuals living in the most deprived areas as well as those with a lifetime experience of unemployment had a statistically significant elevated risk of head and neck cancer, whereas high levels of education were associated with a low risk of the disease. The effect of education may be attributed to its influence on risky behaviours and lifestyle choices. When socioeconomic factors were adjusted for smoking and consumption of alcohol, statistical significance was lost. Although smoking and alcohol consumption dampened these associations, a trend of increasing risk for head and neck cancers with severe deprivation, low education and unemployment was observed. When behavioural risk factors and socioeconomic variables were entered into a multivariate model, smoking was the only independent variable found to be significantly associated with head and neck cancers. Cancer patients in the experimental group were mainly heavy smokers; therefore, it is not surprising to detect a strong association between these cancers and smoking. This result corresponds to similar findings from numerous other studies.Multivariate analysis found that consumption of alcohol was not significantly associated with head and neck cancers, despite evidence of a higher risk in those consuming more than 2.25 and up to 4.70 units per week. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a combined effect of smoking and alcohol consumption on cancer risk. These findings are surprising, given the body of evidence, and Results The study population included 103 cancer patients (38 women and 65 men), and 91 controls (39 women and 52 men).Individuals living in the most deprived areas (OR, 4.66; 95% CI,) and those who were unemployed (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.21-4.26) had a significantly higher risk of cancer than people who had high levels of educational attainment (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.58).Significance was lost for all measures of social class when adjustments were made for smoking and consumption of alcohol. When the most important behavioural and socioeconomic factors were combined in a fully adjusted multivariate analysis, smoking was the only significant risk factor (OR, 15....

show abstract

“…16 Alcohol on its own does cause damage to the oral mucosa and includes epithelial atrophy and decease in basal cell size atrophy with associated hyper-regeneration. 17 Against this background there is overwhelming evidence that mouthwashes are of value in reducing bacterial plaque and gingivitis and are useful adjuncts to mechanical methods of plaque removal.…”

Section: Safety and Efficacy Of Alco-hol Containing Mouthwashesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are alcohol containing mouthwashes safe?

Werner

Seymour

2009

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

reviews and the interpretation of the evidence and hopefully provide readers with an opinion on the safety or otherwise of alcohol containing mouthwashes. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCEEpidemiological studies are complex and aspects such as sample size, strength of association, confounding variables and data collection bias can be rightfully challenged. By contrast, arguments can also be made for the exploitation of specifi c aspects of interest (reporting bias). This is obviously a controversial topic which can lead to different courses of clinical action. Dentistry often deals with such issues and dentists have to make ethical decisions on clinical protocols and material based on less than ideal types of scientifi c evidence.Our aim is to guide the reader through a clear pathway which provides relevant information for refl ection and leads to an informed decision. Scientifi c evidence will be explored in light of the most recent reviews so that we can empower all members of the dental team with the best clinical advice on the use of mouthwashes.

show abstract

Enhanced penetration of nitrosonornicotine across oral mucosa in the presence of ethanol

Cited by 84 publications

References 16 publications

Glutathione S-Transferase Polymorphisms and the Synergy of Alcohol and Tobacco in Oral, Pharyngeal, and Laryngeal Carcinoma

Glutathione S-Transferase Polymorphisms and the Synergy of Alcohol and Tobacco in Oral, Pharyngeal, and Laryngeal Carcinoma

Socioeconomic status and head and neck cancer

Are alcohol containing mouthwashes safe?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About