Dr.R.Ganesh, Post-graduate student, Dept.

of Public Health Dentistry

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of potential benefits of a dentist's intervention during a medical smoking cessation program, as part of the usual care for smokers attending a smoking cessation clinic.

A description of the trial was provided and a pre-screening interview was made on the phone. .   Study participants were recruited through public advertisements in the hospital area and in local newspapers. Interested participants were invited to call the study center.

/day. A score of minimum 6/10 on the psychometric Likert's scale in response to the question "What is today your motivation to quit smoking from one to ten?". Currently smoking for ≥ 3 years at least 10 cig. .   Age between 18 and 70.

at risk of alcohol consumption. current unstable psychiatric illness. presence of an unstable or life-threatening medical condition. illegal drug consumption. recent oral hygiene intervention (< 6 months). people at risk to develop endocarditis.        current pharmacological use to quit smoking. long-term bisphosphonate treatment. .

. risks and benefits. Participants gave their written informed consent. oro-dental and smoking histories were taken. Detailed medical.   At the first visit. oral and written explanations of the trial were provided about participant's implication. Anthropometric measures were taken.

 The study was performed in the Department of ambulatory care and community medicine. . which includes a primary care clinic and a dental clinic at the same building.

and 8) were scheduled and participants were asked to plan a quit date from the inclusion day until the 4th visit at week 8. A counseling session lasted thirty minutes in average. . 4. All participants received an 8-week smoking cessation intervention including individual-based intervention combining replacement therapy and/or bupropion and 4 sessions of counseling. 2.   Four visits (at week # 1.

At the second visit. the dentist performed an simple oral hygiene treatment.   . At the first visit. one week later. The dental intervention was provided by a dentist trained in periodontology and included two visits. the dentist performed an orodental exam to rule out oro-dental lesions.

 acceptability of potential physical annoyances due to the dentist's intervention  advantages and disadvantages of the dentist's intervention. The acceptability and feasibility of the dentist's intervention was assessed by a hetero administrated evaluation questionnaire . Four questions on  global satisfaction. .

Continuous smoking abstinence was defined as self-reporting of continuous smoking abstinence from the 8-week visit to the 6-month visit. The Lausanne University's Medical School Ethics Committee approved the research protocol    . A follow-up visit was scheduled at 6-months for participants that were abstinent at the 4th visit. and biochemical validation by an expired carbon monoxide rate less than 10 ppm . A maximum of 5 cigarettes smoked during the abstinence period was tolerated.

4 (3. The mean (SD) [kg/m2] body mass index was 22.06). 59% of the subjects were women.7 (8.     The mean age of the subjects was 36 years (range 22-53 years). 18% of the subjects had a high level of education. . The mean (SD) number of daily smoked cigarettes was 18.0).

lozenges or gums 57.7% (9. and bupropion 3. At the 8-week visit. inhalers 19.8% (3.8). the proportion (SD) of participants using transdermal patches was 50% (9.2% (7. Nicotine replacement therapy was used by 97% of the participants. .9).   At least one previous quit attempt was made by 97% of the participants.8).8).


3 participants presented with a pre-cancerous lesion.  . such as hyperkeratosis of the tongue (n = 1) or gingival leucoplakia (n = 2). 17 (44%) participants were abstinent from smoking.8%) had periodontitis. At the 6-month follow.up visit. At the end of the intervention (week 8).g. 6 (15%) reported a confirmed continuous smoking abstinence.1%) participants presented with a severe form of post adolescent/ adult periodontitis.2%) presented gingival inflammation. e. 11 participants (28. bleeding.  2 (5.    (59%) of the participants had an unhealthy oro-dental status. and 12 (30.

proportion of men and women and scholar education level. Subjects were representative of the smokers from the general population in terms of age. and the oral exam revealed the majority of participants presented with oro dental effects from tobacco. .   The dentist intervention helped the smokers to identify their own oral lesions due to smoking. The results were similar to the observed rates of smoking quit attempts managed in smoking cessation clinics. number of smoked cigarettes per day.

. and relapse rate is high during the early post-cessation period The dentist intervention helped the smokers to identify their own oral lesions due to smoking. abstaining from smoking is hard to achieve.  The recruited participants had an initial motivation to quit smoking of min. 6/10 on the Likert Scale. and the oral exam revealed the majority of participants presented with orodental effects from tobacco. even when smokers say that they are ready to stop.

 This motivational aid was possibly missing during the consolidation stage.  .  Response bias might have occurred due to administration of questionnaire by smoking cessation team.Dental hygienists were not involved in intervention.  The design of the intervention did not allow any further contact between the participants and the dentist until the end of the study.


Source of the article: BMC Public health About the journal : • Type of journal.Biomed central • Section of the journal under which the article is published – Original research .Indexed • Publisher of journal.

 . Year of the publication : 2010 Volume no. Carlos Madrid and Jacques Cornuz. Marcelo Abarca.10 Page number: 348 About the authors: Semira Gonseth. There is a mention of institutional attachment.     It is peer reviewed .

  It indicated the topic and focus of the study. . It reflects the aim and objectives of the study. It indicated the research question.   meaningful and complete.

 It is specific.  Key words have not been mentioned.  Title is long.  Title does not look catchy. It gives an idea of study population and not about study setting.  It does not give an idea of the design of the study. .

It gives the gist of the whole text Information given in the abstract match with what present in the text . It can facilitate reader in his selection of pertinent study.   . Comprehensive in its contents and long. informative. The article follows IMRAD format.    Structured.

.   It logically presented The citations relevant and pertinent to the study being reported. It has adapted a seminar approach.   Citations followed correct references in list of references. It is built on existing literature.   The introduction meaningful and concise. It has presented the need of the study.

 Mentioned the aim and objectives of the study. .   It stated the research hypothesis It succeeded in introducing the back ground of the study subject to the reader .

The study was done on smokers smoking > 10 cigarettes/day for 3 years between age group 18 and 70years. It is a pilot study. clear and meaningful manner It is replicable Study design is a non-controlled .     . Methodology presented in a logical .

. The target population. Informed consent was taken Ethical committee approval was taken. sampling frame and study population clearly  defined . Inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned. The study subjects were selected randomly from November 2007 to May 2008.     Subjects studied in real life circumstances.

    Results not presented in a logical manner. Results are based on aim and objectives of the study. . Important results were not presented in tables. The figures were numbered and titled properly .

It opens new vistas for further research • • • . It highlights the important findings of the study • The authors compared the current findings with that of the ones already reported in literature The comparison logical and reasoned properly . Implications of the study was discussed.• • The discussion is meaningful.

Appropriate suggestions and recommendations were made.      Summary was not given. It is based on aim and objectives of the study. The research question is answered. No new hypothesis generated. Conclusion is meaningful. .

 Enough number of reference have been quoted in the text part of the article. (1992-2009).  References have been presented according to the scientific convention.  Vancouver method was used . Of recent publications16.

 Current guidelines and most experts regard them as roughly equivalent. and offer pharmacotherapy to help them quit .  The choice of pharmacotherapy should take the patient’s preferences and past experiences into consideration.There is broad agreement. unless one agent is contraindicated.  Physicians should routinely identify patients’ smoking status and readiness to quit. based on strong evidence. about what constitutes effective treatment of tobacco use and dependence. advise and assist smokers to quit.  There is insufficient evidence to determine whether nicotine-replacement products or bupropion is superior.  .

Dentists who implement an effective smoking cessation program can expect to achieve quit rates up to 10-15 percent each year among their patients who smoke or use smokeless tobacco. There is good evidence that brief interventions from health professionals can increase rates of smoking cessation. . The challenge is implementing effective treatment in one’s practice or institution while using available primary care resources to provide additional benefit.    This article describes the results of studies among dental care providers regarding tobacco cessation in the past two decades.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times