Back to all available

Smoking-induced changes in saliva composition and tongue coating

dentistry
public-health

Abstract

Background. Saliva parameters and tongue coating have global significance because they offer simple, non-invasive indicators of oral and systemic health, helping clinicians and researchers detect disease risk, monitor wellness, and improve early diagnostic strategies across diverse populations.

Objective. This study aimed to investigate the effects of smoking on salivary flow rate, pH, buffering capacity, and tongue coating characteristics among adult smokers and nonsmokers.

Methods. A cross-sectional study was designed to compare salivary parameters and tongue coating between smokers and nonsmokers. A purposive sampling method was used. The data collected were the patient's resting saliva pH, stimulated saliva pH, saliva buffering capacity, and tongue coating for both smokers and nonsmokers. The inclusion criteria required the absence of systemic illness and medication that affected saliva flow.

Results. A total of 78 participants were assessed for unstimulated and stimulated saliva flow, salivary pH, buffering capacity, and tongue coating (thickness, area, and colour). Smokers exhibited significantly reduced buffering capacity (p = 0.002) and increased tongue coating thickness and distribution area (p = 0.008 and p = 0.000, respectively), though saliva flow and pH differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion. These findings underscore smoking as a modifiable risk factor influencing the oral microbiome and caries-related salivary defences. Integrating tongue coating and saliva analysis in caries risk assessments may improve early intervention strategies.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].