Intensive Smoking-cessation Intervention in the Dental Setting

Abstract

Smoking exerts detrimental effects on dental treatment and oral health. Our goal was to evaluate effectiveness in terms of the abstinence rate in smoking-cessation intervention delivered by dental professionals. Individuals who were willing to quit smoking were randomly assigned to either an intervention or a non-intervention group. Intensive intervention was provided, consisting of 5 counseling sessions, including an additional nicotine replacement regimen. Reported abstinence was verified by the salivary cotinine level. Thirty-three persons in the intervention and 23 in the non-intervention group started the trial. On an intent-to-treat basis, 3-, 6- and 12-month continuous abstinence rates in the intervention group were 51.5%, 39.4%, and 36.4%, respectively, while the rates in the non-intervention group were consistent at 13.0%. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) by logistic stepwise regression analyses were 7.1 (1.8, 28.5), 8.9 (1.7, 47.2), and 6.4 (1.3, 30.7), respectively. Intensive smoking-cessation intervention in the dental setting was therefore effective.

Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting

“…The review included 14 studies involving over 10,500 participants (Andrews 1999; Binnie 2007; Ebbert 2007; Gordon 2010a; Gordon 2010b; Gansky 2005; Hanioka 2010; Lando 2007; Nohlert 2009; Severson 1998; Severson 2009; Stevens 1995; Walsh 1999; Walsh 2003). Although Andrews 1999 and Severson 1998 reported the same trial they are treated here as separate studies since Andrews 1999 focused on outcomes in smokeless tobacco users and Severson 1998 on smokers.…”

A Randomized Control Trial of Smoking Cessation Interventions Conducted by Dentists

“…A similar result was also reflected by Wee et al (2011), where most smokers were male but again these data were collected in a health setting. Nonetheless, a study in Japan by Hanioka et al (2010) found the smokers attended quit smoking clinics in dental clinic were predominantly male. However, trials conducted by other studies (Gordon et al 2007;Nohlert et al 2009) recruited more females due to the fact that women were more willing to seek and accept support for smoking cessation compared to men.…”

Evidence summary: is smoking cessation an effective and cost-effective service to be introduced in NHS dentistry?

“…We did not find studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in the UK. [5][6][7][8][9] were excluded as they were either published before 2008 or did not match the inclusion criteria. Nohlert's 2009 9 study was omitted as it compared two methods of smoking cessation rather than examining individual effectiveness.…”