2015
DOI: 10.4238/2015.august.14.18
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of genotoxicity of waterpipe smoking using 8-OHdG biomarker

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Waterpipe tobacco smoking is increasing in popularity, particularly among young adults. This popularity is related to the lack knowledge regarding the health effects of waterpipe smoking. In this study, we examined the genotoxicity of waterpipe smoking using an 8-hydroxy deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) assay. Genotoxicity was evaluated in the saliva, urine, and serum of 66 waterpipe adult smokers and 46 healthy nonsmokers. The level of addiction to waterpipe smoking was evaluated using the Lebanon Waterpipe … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The search generated 1,286 scientific articles; title and abstract screening resulted in the selection of 27; and in the screening of the full texts, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. [9][10][11]13,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] A flowchart of the search and selection process is displayed in Figure 1. Of the 22 included studies, 14 studies explored the chemical families and components coming from the waterpipe smoke, [9][10][11][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 3 studies assessed the microbial contaminants of waterpipe smoke, [29][30][31] and 5 studies evaluated the genotoxic effects of waterpipe smoke.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The search generated 1,286 scientific articles; title and abstract screening resulted in the selection of 27; and in the screening of the full texts, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. [9][10][11]13,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] A flowchart of the search and selection process is displayed in Figure 1. Of the 22 included studies, 14 studies explored the chemical families and components coming from the waterpipe smoke, [9][10][11][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 3 studies assessed the microbial contaminants of waterpipe smoke, [29][30][31] and 5 studies evaluated the genotoxic effects of waterpipe smoke.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the 22 included studies, 14 studies explored the chemical families and components coming from the waterpipe smoke, [9][10][11][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 3 studies assessed the microbial contaminants of waterpipe smoke, [29][30][31] and 5 studies evaluated the genotoxic effects of waterpipe smoke. 13,[32][33][34][35] Chemical Families and Components…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tubes were mixed immediately and then centrifuged at 1500 xg for 5 minutes to obtain plasma. Saliva samples were collected as described previously (Azab et al 2015). In brief, participants rinsed their mouth three times with distilled water and, 5 minutes after, about 2 mL of saliva was collected.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using light microscope (at high-resolution; final magnification: 1000×; from Nikon, Japan), all slides were scored for SCE. A minimum of fifty-clearly differentiated metaphases containing 42–46 chromosomes were scored for every cell culture as previously described (Azab et al, 2015).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%