INTRODUCTION Dentists are in a critical position to help patients quit smoking. This study analyses the effectiveness of Turkish dentists in smoking cessation as part of routine patient care. METHODS An in-person cross-sectional survey on previous dental visit experiences was completed by 226 patients recruited from the Department of Periodontology, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Turkey, from March 2019 to September 2019. The questionnaire included topics on patient’s smoking/quit characteristics, experiences on smoking cessation from their dentists, and willingness for the implementation of smoking cessation advice by dentists. RESULTS In all, 38% of the patients were current smokers, 8% were former smokers, and 68% tried to quit previously. Smokers demonstrated consistently higher scores for plaque index, gingival index, and probing depth, than former/non-smokers (p<0.05). Patients’ knowledge of adverse effects was high, and the patients presented a positive attitude toward receiving cessation activities from dentists (86.7%). A total of 89% responded positively to be asked about their smoking behavior. However, the dentists’ approach for cessation discussions did not go any further than listing the harmful effects. Only 32% of the patients were informed about side effects of smoking and one-third were encouraged to quit. In general, offering smoking cessation advice was relatively infrequent, and the majority of patients tried to quit smoking by themselves (76%) without using any nicotine replacement product (84%). CONCLUSIONS Smoking leads to oral health problems. Dentists in Turkey may ask their patients’ about their smoking habits but less frequently offer practical help to quit.

Background Although periodontitis is associated with increased risk of hypertension, studies based on new periodontal disease classification is limited. We investigated whether periodontitis severity and progression rate are linked with self-reports on doctor-diagnosed hypertension in a large cohort of patients attending the periodontology clinic at the faculty of dentistry. Methods Archived patient files, including radiographic image records and results from full-mouth clinical periodontal examination were screened for inclusion. Data on socioeconomic factors, smoking and oral hygiene habits, and medical history were collected with a questionnaire. Results Diagnosis and background data were available for 7008 patients. The median (IQR) age was 31.0 (21.0) years; 60.1% (n = 4211) were female. Hypertension was diagnosed in 6.2% (n = 435) of patients. Both periodontitis stage and grade differed (p < 0.001) between patients with or without hypertension. Increased periodontal disease severity was associated with a 20% increasing risk for hypertension; the odds ratio (OR) was 2.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48–4.68, p < 0.001) in stage IV periodontitis. Increasing periodontitis progression rate was associated with a 35% increased risk for hypertension; the OR was 2.22 (95% CI 1.45–3.40, p < 0.001) in grade C periodontitis. Conclusion Severity and progression rate of periodontitis may be independent risk factors for hypertension in this large cohort of patients attending the university periodontal department.

Articles reporting research may be full length or brief reports. These should report original research findings within the journal's scope. Papers should generally be a maximum of 4000 words in length, excluding tables, references, and abstract and key points of the article, whilst it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 30. Review PapersComprehensive, authoritative, reviews within the journal's scope. There are two types of review papers:-systematic review papers: respond to a specific research question, accrue from criterion-based selection of sources, include a quantitative synthesis and a statistical method (meta-analysis), and should adhere to PRISMA guidelines. Guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity should be noted in methods section. -narrative review papers: the research question may be broad, and the scope of this review is to discuss a specific topic and keep the readers up-to-date about it. This type of review does not necessarily include a methodological approach and its synthesis is usually qualitative. Narrative reviews should include in a developments section, with details regarding data sources used, keywords applied, time restrictions and study types selected. Developments should be based on actual review articles. All review papers should be generally less than 6000 words, excluding abstract, tables, figures and references. References should not exceed 50. Conclusion of the reviews should be specific and stem from the findings. Short ReportsBrief reports of data from original research. Short reports are shorter versions of original articles, may include one table or figure, should not exceed 1500 words, and it is recommended that the number of references should not exceed 15. Short reports are suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished.