Abstract
Objective:
The study aimed to evaluate the impact of tobacco use on the composition and functions of the oral microbiome in healthy adult humans.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cinhal databases for literature published until 15 December 2023, to identify studies that have evaluated the oral microbiome with culture-independent next-generation techniques comparing the oral microbiome of tobacco users and non-users. The search followed the PECO format. The outcomes included changes in microbial diversity and abundance of microbial taxa. The quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) (PROSPERO ID CRD42022340151).
Results:
Out of 2,435 articles screened, 36 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria and were selected for full-text review. Despite differences in design, quality, and population characteristics, most studies reported an increase in bacterial diversity and richness in tobacco users. The most notable bacterial taxa enriched in users were Fusobacteria and Actinobacteria at the phylum level and Streptococcus, Prevotella, and Veillonella at the genus level. At the functional level, more similarities could be noted; amino acid metabolism and xenobiotic biodegradation pathways were increased in tobacco users compared to non-users. Most of the studies were of good quality on the NOS scale.
Conclusion:
Tobacco smoking influences oral microbial community harmony, and it shows a definitive shift towards a proinflammatory milieu. Heterogeneities were detected due to sampling and other methodological differences, emphasizing the need for greater quality research using standardized methods and reporting.
Systematic Review Registration:
CRD42022340151.
1 Introduction
The human oral cavity harbors a diverse microbial community comprising over 700 species of bacteria or phylotypes that play a commensal role in protecting oral and systemic health (1). These diverse species have been identified by cultivation or the advancing culture in-dependent molecular approaches (1). These species attach and form biofilms on the mouth's soft and hard tissue surfaces in a structurally organized matrix, inducing a dynamic equilibrium with the immune-inflammatory response of the host (2). The human oral cavity serves as one of the major gateways to the respiratory tract, thus giving microorganisms the substantial prospect of invading these sites (3). Despite the similarities between the core microbial composition within the oral cavities, the type of species may vary depending on diet and nutrition, genetic susceptibility, antibiotic usage, hormonal factors, tobacco and alcohol exposure, and recurrent pathogenic infections of the host (4). This disturbance to the equilibrium results in oral dysbiosis altering oral and systemic health through several pathophysiological processes linked to disease (5). Dysbiosis has reportedly been involved in oral diseases such as periodontitis, gingivitis, and oral cancer (6–8).
The emergence of new genomic technology including next-generation sequencing, has led to the identification of resident bacterial populations in almost all organs and systems of the body, and has sparked an increased interest in the microbiota among researchers. These next generation sequencing helped to reveal the complex nature of the oral microbiome community, which could not be revealed by culture methods and traditional Sanger sequencing methods as less abundant and non-cultivable microbes of the population are often overlooked, which jeopardizes the accuracy of the detailed account of the microbial community (9).
Recent studies show that despite a global decline in tobacco consumption, tobacco use is exponentially rising in parts of the world, leading to a consequential public health concern (10). Tobacco smoke comprises numerous toxicants that come into direct contact with the bacteria in the oral cavity, disrupting the microbial ecology of the mouth. These toxic compounds cause cellular injury and cell death, including N-nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons blocking DNA repair and initiating tumorigenesis (11). Smoking has been shown to cause the loss of beneficial oral species, leading to pathogenic alterations by interacting with various host cells and extracellular matrix components, ultimately leading to the risk of disease development (12). This alteration increases the local density of the bacterial pathogens or decreases the prevalence of other bacteria (13, 14). Emerging evidence on the effects of smokeless tobacco on the composition of the oral microbiota in humans suggests it leads to a pro-inflammatory milieu in the oral microenvironment, further leading to diseases (15). To date, the literature on the effects of tobacco use on the oral microbiome in humans has not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, we carried out a systematic review as a first attempt to characterize the impact of tobacco use on the oral microbiome profile in healthy adults and to compare the differences in the oral microbiome profile of tobacco users with non-users. It also aims to highlight the potential effects of smoking on the host's health by analyzing the available data regarding the relationship between the human oral microbiome and tobacco use.
2 Material and methods
2.1 Search strategy
A systematic review was conducted to answer the question: “Is the oral microbiome profile of tobacco users different from non-users?” The present systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under CRD42022340151) The systematic literature search was performed to identify published studies until Dec 2023 examining the oral microbial community in tobacco users in comparison to controls using broad MeSH terms and other related keywords. The search was performed independently by two investigators (NS and CY). The electronic databases used are PubMed, Web of science and CINHAL. The search was carried out using the specific key keywords with the use of Boolean operators “OR” and “AND.” The search strategy and output for each database is provided as Supplementary Tables S1–S3. Following the elimination of duplicates, the titles and abstracts were evaluated in accordance with the preset eligibility criteria as provided below to determine whether or not they should be included for additional full-text reading. Two independent investigators (NS and CY) scanned the titles and corresponding abstracts. If the abstract clearly indicated what was included or excluded, the record was read in its entirety. In the event that the findings of the two investigators disagreed, DG, the third investigator, was consulted. We manually examined the reference lists of the included publications to find any potentially relevant articles that could be included. The systematic review follows in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (16).
2.2 Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
Cross-sectional or prospective observational studies that compared the oral microbiome analyzed with culture-independent next-generation techniques from tobacco users, including cigarettes, water pipes, smokeless, and other forms of tobacco in comparison to healthy controls were included. The detailed PECO (Population, Exposure, Control, and Outcome) scheme followed is below:
Population: Human adults using tobacco
Exposure: Use of any form of tobacco
Control: Non-users
Outcome: Changes in microbial diversity and abundance of various microbial taxa
Type of studies: Cross-sectional or prospective observational studies that utilized culture-independent next-generation techniques without date limitation.
Exclusion criteria
The studies which did not fit into the inclusion criteria were excluded.
Studies utilizing culture techniques, studies on diseased populations like periodontitis or caries, which can have an impact on the oral microbiome, animal studies, and studies on e-cigarettes were excluded. Further narrative reviews, systematic reviews, conference reports, and letters to the editor were excluded. The literature search was limited to the English Language.
2.3 Data Extraction
Data was extracted from the selected articles through a separate full-text review by two reviewers. The following study characteristics were extracted from each article: author name, year of publication, study design, sample size, age and gender distribution, type of tobacco, exposure assessment, and significant changes in oral microbial diversity and abundances of taxa.
2.4 Quality assessment
The quality assessment for the included studies was performed independently by two reviewers (NS and CY) using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (17). If there is any discrepancy, then the third author was consulted (DG) and the discrepancy was resolved. This instrument incorporates three separate domains: selection, comparability, and outcomes. The selection domain involves the assessment of four items; comparability has one item, and outcomes include three items. The selected article will receive one star in each item if acceptable, thus obtaining a maximum of four in the selection domain, one in the comparability domain, and three in the outcome domain.
3 Results
3.1 General study characteristics
The search yielded 2,435 records from the three databases, of which 1,109 were excluded altogether due to duplicates. Screening of articles by title and abstract and reviewing of full text resulted in 36 eligible articles for full text (Figure 1). Of the 36 articles, nine were from the United States of America (18–26), six were from India (15, 27–31), five were from the United Arab Emirates (32–36),three were from China (37–39), two from Japan (40, 41) and others including Brazil (42), Jordan (43), Hungary (44), Croatia (45), Iran (46), Germany (47), Denmark (48), Italy (49), Sudan (50), Ireland (51) and Korea (52).
Figure 1
The study design followed cross-sectional studies with a sample size ranging from 22 to 1,616. Most studies were conducted on cigarette users, except seven studies that focused on smokeless tobacco products including chewing tobacco (20, 27–30, 34, 50). The 16s rRNA gene sequencing was the most commonly used methodology except for three studies that used shotgun metagenomic gene techniques (28, 33, 44). A common trait seen in most studies was screening for antibiotic usage before sampling and for the presence of chronic or oral illnesses. Further, some studies also included decisive factors that can influence the microbiome, including alcohol consumption, BMI, and diet, into consideration for profiling of the subjects (25, 27, 31, 38). Sample collection types include saliva, oral and buccal swabs, oral rinses, supragingival, subgingival and tongue scrapes, and mouthwashes. The detailed characteristics are provided in Table 1 (42–52). All controls were deemed healthy except for one study that acquired control subjects from cancer cohorts (19).
Table 1
| No | Author, Country, Year | Study Design | Sample Characteristics | Type of tobacco | Amount of Exposure—Assessment | Methodology | Statistical Adjustments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thomas et al. (42), Brazil, 2014 | Cross-sectional | N = 22 6 active smokers 7 smokers and drinkers 9 controls | Cigarette | Smokers—20 cigarettes/day for past 10 years | V1 region of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subject with cancer, use of antibiotics within last 3 months, comorbidities, presence of oral lesions were excluded |
| 2 | Mason et al. (18), USA, 2015 | Cross-sectional | N = 200 100 current smokers 100 never smokers | Not specified | N/A | 16s rRNA sequencing | Diabetes, HIV, pregnancy, immunosuppressants, bisphosphonates, steroids, antibiotics, current orthodontic therapy, or professional dental cleaning within 3 months and pre-treatment using antibiotic were excluded |
| 3 | Wu et al. (19) USA, 2016 | Cross-sectional | N = 1,204 112 current smokers 471 former smokers 521 never Smokers | Cigarette | Assessed but not specified | V3 to V4 regions of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | No cancer prior to sampling Age and sex was adjusted |
| 4 | Hernandez et al. (20) USA, 2017 | Cross-sectional | N = 122 64 current chewers 37 former chewers 21 non chewers | Chewing tobacco | Long term chewers: >10 years | V3 to V5 region of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | No history of oral cancer |
| 5 | Yu et al. (21) USA, 2017 | Cross-sectional | N = 43 23 current smokers 20 never smokers | Cigarette | Smokers: >100 cigarettes in a life time | V3 to V4 regions of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Age, gender, race, antibiotic usage or professional dental cleaning within the last 3 months or diagnosed with periodontal disease or cancer or losing >1 tooth were excluded |
| 6 | Rodríguez- Rabassa et al. (22) USA, 2018 | Cross-sectional | N = 34 15 non-smokers 18 current smokers | Cigarette | Assessed but not specified | V3 to V4 regions of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Age, sex, race, education level (high school/college) was adjusted |
| 7 | Stewart et al. (23) USA, 2018 | Cross-sectional | N = 30 10 e-cigarette users 10 tobacco smokers 10 controls | E-cigarette Cigarette | E-cigarette—daily use for at least 6 months Tobacco smokers ≥4 and ≥10 cigarettes per day | V4 region of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Sex, age, diet, height/weight and race adjusted |
| 8 | Vallès et al. (32) UAE, 2018 | Cross-sectional | N = 330 105 smokers 225 non-smokers | Cigarette Dokha Shisha | Self-reported | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Tobacco smoke exposure cut-off concentration of 200 ng/ml |
| 9 | Beghini et al. (24) USA, 2019 | Cross-sectional | N = 297 90 current smokers 45 never smokers 45 former smokers 38 non-smokers with second hand exposure 79 alternative smokers | Cigarette E-cigarette Hookah Cigar Cigarillo | Current smokers: >100 cigarettes. Never smokers: <100 cigarettes, serum cotinine <0.05 ng/ml Former smokers: >100 cigarettes, serum cotinine <0.05 ng/ml Non-smokers: serum cotinine 1–14 ng/ml | V4 region of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subjects who smoked in the last 5 days were excluded |
| 10 | Lin et al. (26) USA, 2019 | Cross-sectional | N = 60 30 smokers 30 non-smokers | Cigarette | N/A | 16s rNA sequencing | Subjects not treated for nicotine use, serious medical or psychiatric conditions, use of illicit drugs or on insulin or oral hypoglycaemic medications were excluded. Age and gender adjusted |
| 11 | Yang et al. (25) USA, 2019 | Cross-sectional | N = 1,616 592 current smokers 477 former smokers 547 never smokers | Cigarette | N/A | V4 region of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Age, sex, race, body mass index, alcohol consumption, total energy intake, oral and disease status adjusted. |
| 12 | Al Bataineh et al. (33) UAE, 2020 | Cross sectional | N = 105 55 smokers 50 non-smokers | Cigarette | Cigarette smokers: ≥5 years | Shotgun metagenomic sequencing | Antibiotic or prescribed probiotic use in the past three months, and those with pre-existing respiratory illness such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease excluded |
| 13 | Al-Zyoud et al. (43) Jordan, 2020 | Cross-sectional | N = 100 49 smokers 51 non-smokers | Cigarette | Smokes at least 1 cigarette per day | V3 to V4 regions of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Antibiotic free for the last three months No chronic oral diseases |
| 14 | Halboub et al. (34) UAE, 2020 | Cross-sectional | N = 52 29 smokers 23 non-smokers | Smokeless tobacco (Shammah) | Daily for at least 1 year without cessation | V1 to V3 regions of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subjects with moderate to severe gingivitis or periodontitis, history of antibiotic, antifungal or steroids use and periodontal treatment, including prophylaxis in the last 3 months were excluded |
| 15 | Sato et al. (40) Japan, 2020 | Cross-sectional | N = 657 364 never smokers 129 former smokers 144 current smokers | Cigarette | N//A | V3 to V4 regions of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subjects on oral antimicrobials or steroids, low GFR rate, on anti-hypertensive drugs, hypoglycaemic agents or probiotics were excluded |
| 16 | Wirth et al. (44) Hungary, 2020 | Cross-sectional | N = 22 11 smokers 11 non-smokers | Cigarette | Cigarette smokers: ≥20 cigarettes/pack year | Shotgun metagenomic sequencing—real time PCR | Chronic illnesses and treatment with antibiotics for at least 6 months prior to sampling were excluded |
| 17 | Bašić et al. (45) Croatia, 2021 | Cross-sectional | N = 64 32 smokers 32 non-smokers | Cigarette | Smokers—1 pack/day | MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry | Presence of periodontitis, systemic diseases, mediation, pregnancy, less than 20 teeth, use of antibiotics six months prior and periodontal or orthodontic therapy use was excluded. |
| 18 | Al Kawas et al. (35) UAE, 2021 | Cross-sectional | N = 40 10 controls 10 cigarettes smokers 10 shisha smokers 10 medwakh | Cigarette Shisha Medwakh | N/A | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Patients who were currently receiving orthodontic treatment and those who had any periodontal treatment, antibiotics, or steroid therapy in the last 3 months were excluded |
| 19 | Jia et al. (37) China, 2021 | Cross-sectional | N = 316 | Cigarette | Current Smokers: one cigarette every 1–3 days for 1 year Former Smokers: no smoking for a year | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Amplicon sequence variants in fewer than three samples and with abundances less than five were excluded |
| 20 | Li et al. (38) China, 2021 | Cross-sectional | N = 76 16 smokers 60 non-smokers | Cigarette | Not specified | V4 region of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | No oesophageal cancer, low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) Age, gender, BMI adjusted |
| 21 | Srivastava et al. (27) India, 2021 | Cross-sectional | N = 40 20 smokers 10 non-smokers | Smokeless tobacco | Smokers—>5 years with 25 g of SLT product intake a week | V3 region of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subjects who were alcoholic and on any medications or antibiotics were excluded |
| 22 | Wu et al. (46) Iran, 2021 | Cross-sectional | N = 558 120 cigarette only users 120 never users 49 opium only users | Cigarette | N/A | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subjects who had a normal pancreas at the endoscopic ultrasonography exam, aged 40 years or older, no history of liver or renal failure or cancer, no consumption of a special diet, and did not develop pancreatic disease or any cancer within one year of the initial visit |
| 23 | Al-Marzooq et al. (36) UAE, 2022 | Cross-sectional | N = 40 10 control 10 cigarette smokers 10 shisha smokers 10 medwakh smokers | Cigarette Shisha Medwakh | N/A | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subjects who smoked more than one type of tobacco and had less than 10 teeth were excluded |
| 24 | Gopinath et al. (15) India, 2022 | Cross-sectional | N = 44 17 smokers 14 smokeless tobacco users 14 non-smokers | Cigarettes/Bidis Smokeless tobacco | Tobacco use—1–12 years | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subjects to refrain from smoking, drinking and eating 30 min before sample collection |
| 25 | Pfeiffer et al. (47) Germany, 2022 | Cross-sectional | N = 58 30 smokers 6 ex-smokers 10 never-smokers | Cigarette | Long term Smokers: ≥10 daily cigarettes & ≥10 pack years Short term smokers: ≥10 daily cigarettes & <10 pack years Mild smokers: <10 daily cigarettes & <5 pack years | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | N/A |
| 26 | Poulsen et al. (48) 2022, Denmark | Cross-sectional | N = 746 350 ex-smokers | N/A | N/A | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | N/A |
| 27 | Sharma. (28) 2022, India | Cross-sectional | – | Chewing tobacco | N/A | Metagenomic sequencing | N/A |
| 28 | Suzuki et al. (41) Japan, 2022 | Cross-sectional | N = 50 (39M, 11F) 18 smokers 32 non-smokers | Cigarette | Smokers: ≥100 cigarettes after initiation of smoking | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subjects who scored more than 0 for bleeding on probing and probing pocket depth were excluded |
| 29 | Antonello et al. (49) Italy, 2023 | Cross-sectional | N = 1601 720 current/former smokers 881 non-smokers | Cigarette | Current smokers—reduced daily smoking intensity one month prior | V4 region of 16s rRNA sequencing | Sex, age and number of teeth were adjusted Use of antibiotics for last 3 months and missing date on number of teeth were excluded |
| 30 | Bahuguna et al. (29) India, 2023 | Cross-sectional | N = 22 9 chewers 9 non-chewers 4 occasional/previous chewers | Chewing tobacco | Chewers—habitual individuals Occasional/previous chewers—once in a couple of months/previous history of chewing | 16s rRNA sequencing | N/A |
| 31 | Huang et al. (39) China, 2023 | Cross-sectional | N = 587 111 smokers 467 non-smokers | Cigarette | Pack years but not specified | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Subject with disease and microbial features of cardio metabolic risk factors were excluded |
| 32 | Sami et al. (50) Sudan, 2023 | Cross-sectional | N = 78 47 smokers 32 non smokers | Smokeless tobacco (toombak) | N/A | 16s rRNA sequencing | Absence of periodontal disease and dental infection, controlled caries mouth, use of antibiotics the past 3 months |
| 33 | Sawant et al. (30) India, 2023 | Cross-sectional | N = 120 40 controls 40 long term tobacco chewers 40 oral cancer patients | Chewing tobacco | Chewing tobacco—≥5 years | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Use of antibiotic treatment for one week prior, previous oncotherapy, medically compromised and edentulous subjects were excluded |
| 34 | Galvin et al. (51) Ireland, 2023 | Cross-sectional | N = 322 148 current smokers | Cigarette | N/A | V1toV3 region of 16s rRNA gene | Use of antibiotics or topical steroids intra-orally in the past 3 months, patients with diabetes mellitus, chron's disease, ulcerative colitis, current viral infection and history of gastrointestinal malignancy were excluded |
| 35 | Yadav et al. (31) India, 2023 | Cross-sectional | N = 50 | Cigarette | Smokers—past 5 years | V3 to V4 region of 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Ex-smokers and subjects who both smoked and consumed alcohol were excluded |
| 36 | Yu et al. (52) Korea, 2024 | Cross-sectional | N = 43 | Not specified | N/A | 16s rRNA gene sequencing | Use of antibiotics for one month and food or water intake two hours prior sample collection was restricted. |
Characteristics of the selected studies.
3.2 Diversity and richness analysis
As displayed in Table 2 (42–52), all included studies except five assessed microbial diversity and richness (23, 28, 31, 38, 45). Five studies reported no difference in diversity difference between the smokers and control groups (34, 36, 41, 49, 52). Four studies (21, 26, 40, 42) reported lower diversity and richness in smokers. The rest of the studies concluded that the richness and phylogenetic biodiversity of smokers or tobacco users were significantly different or higher than non-users or former users.
Table 2
| No | Author, Country, Year | Sample Type | Age (Range/Mean/Median) | Other clinical features studied | Results: Diversity and Richness | Bacterial taxa associated with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thomas et al. (42) Brazil, 2014 | Oral swab | Overall—>40 years Smokers—56.67 ± 2.49 Smokers/drinkers—59.86 ± 3.39 Control—58.11 ± 8.28 | Effects of chronic alcohol use on the oral micro biome | Decrease in species richness in smokers | Smokers had significant increases in Prevotella and Capnocytophaga and reductions in Granulicatella, Staphylococcus, Peptostreptococcus and Gemella. Smokers/drinkers had lower abundances of Fusobacteria |
| 2 | Mason et al. (18) USA, 2015 | Subgingival plaques | Overall—21–40 years Never smokers—27.0 ± 5.3Current smokers—28.25 ± 3.5 | Not assessed | Higher diversity in smokers | The subgingival microbiome of smokers was enriched with Fusobacterium nucleatum, S.mutans and Lactobacillus salivarius and lower levels of Streptococcus sanguinis, S.oralis and Hemophilus parainfluenzae |
| 3 | Wu et al. (19) USA, 2016 | Oral rinse | Current Smokers—68.82 Former Smokers—70.71 Never smokers—70.53 | Prospective development of head and neck cancer and pancreatic cancer | Current smokers had an increased diversity | Current smokers had decreased abundance of phylum Proteobacteria Genera Peptostreptococcus, Capnocytophaga, and Leptotrichia were depleted. In contrast, Atopobium and Streptococcus were enriched in current smokers compared with never smokers |
| 4 | Hernandez et al. (20) USA, 2017 | Oral swab Saliva | Overall—18–60 + years | Body mass index | Alpha diversity lower in current chewers | Current chewers had elevated levels of Streptococcus infantis and lower levels Actinomyces and Streptococcus genera. Long-term chewers had reduced levels of Parascardovia and Streptococcus. Chewers with oral lesions had elevated levels of Oribacterium, Actinomyces, and Streptococcus |
| 5 | Yu et al. (21) USA, 2017 | Subgingival plaque scrapes, saliva, oral swab | Assessed but not specified | N/A | Alpha diversity was lower in smokers than in non-smokers in the buccal mucosa | Streptococcus was the most abundant across all types of oral samples followed by Veillonella |
| 6 | Rodríguez- Rabassa et al. (22) USA, 2018 | Saliva | Smokers—54 Non-smokers—34 | Cytokine levels and symptoms of depression | Beta diversity between smokers and non-smokers were p < 0.05 | Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Fusobacteria and Actinobacteria dominated in smoker samples |
| 7 | Stewart et al. (23) USA, 2018 | Saliva Buccal swab | Control—31 (28–36) E-cigarette—29 (24–37) Tobacco smoker—35 (30–45) | N/A | N/A | Cigarette users were associated with significantly lower abundance of Bacteroides and Prevotella compared to EC users and non-smokers |
| 8 | Vallès et al. (32) UAE, 2018 | Mouthwash | Smokers—32.4 Non-smokers—33.1 Cigarette—36.4 Dokha—30.8 Shisha—35.7 | N/A | Tobacco users had higher diversity | Cyanobacteria, SR1, Cyanobacteria) and BD1–5 (GN02) were all depleted in smokers Actinobacillus depletion was consistently observed across all four types of tobacco |
| 9 | Beghini et al. (24) USA, 2019 | Oral rinse | Overall—>18 years | N/A | Difference in beta diversity between current smokers and never smokers. No alpha diversity difference | Streptococcus and Prevotella was the predominant genera, while proteobacteria was less abundant in smokers Phyla Actinobacteria, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were more abundant in alternative smokers. In hookah users, Porphyromonas, Leptotrichia, Streptobacillus and Fusobacterium were depleted |
| 10 | Lin et al. (26) USA, 2019 | Saliva | Overall—37.2 ± 10.65 (21–56 years) | Brain functional connectivity and neurological signalling in smokers, alcohol use identification and marijuana smoking | Decrease of beta diversity in smokers | Bacteroides, Treponema, Mycoplasma, TG5, Actinomyces spp was abundant in smokers. Depletion of Lautropia and Neisseria were also seen in smokers |
| 11 | Yang et al. (25) USA, 2019 | Oral rinse | Current Smokers—53.18 ± 7.90 Former Smokers—59.18 ± 8.49 Never Smokers—55.78 ± 8.88 | Body Mass Index | Current smokers had increased diversity | Phylum Actinobacteria, Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, were enriched among current-smokers Phylum Proteobacteria was depleted in current smokers |
| 12 | Al Bataineh et al. (33) UAE, 2020 | Buccal swab | Smokers—30.40 Non-smokers—30.30 | Nicotine dependence | Heavy smokers had an increase in diversity | Smokers had significant abundance of Veillonella dispar, Prevotella pleuritidis and Leptotrichia spp when compared to non-smokers |
| 13 | Al-Zyoud et al. (43) Jordan, 2020 | Saliva | 23.9 ± 6.20 27.1 ± 7.57 | N/A | Higher richness in smokers vs. non-smokers. | Streptococcus, Prevotella, and Veillonella showed significantly elevated levels among smokers and Neisseria in non-smokers |
| 14 | Halboub et al. (34) UAE, 2020 | Tongue scrapes | Overall—20–40 years Smokers—27.34 ± 6.9 years Non-smokes—27.7 ± 7.19 years | N/A | No significant difference in richness or alpha diversity between study groups. | Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, and Bacteroidetes were abundant in all samples Rothia mucilaginosa, Streptococcus sp. oral taxon 66, Actinomyces meyeri, Streptococcus vestibularis, Streptococcus sanguinis and Veilonella was abundant in smokers |
| 15 | Sato et al. (40) Japan, 2020 | Tongue coating | Never smokers—49.78 Former smokers—48.03 Current smokers—43.99 | N/A | The alpha diversity was lower in current smokers than in never smokers | Neisseria and Capnocytophaga were less abundant and Streptococcus and Megasphaera were more abundant in current smokers |
| 16 | Wirth et al. (44) Hungary, 2020 | Saliva | Non-smokers—40 Smokers—41.5 | Level of exhaled carbon monoxide and periodontal status | Increase in diversity in the smokers group | Streptococcus along with Prevotella and Veillonella were abundant in both groups Prevotella and Megasphaera was higher in saliva of current smokers whereas Neisseria, Oribacterium, Capnocytophaga and Porphyromonas were reduced |
| 17 | Bašić et al. (45) Croatia, 2021 | Subgingival plaques | Overall—25–35 years old | N/A | N/A | Prevalence of Actinomyces odontolyticus was higher in smokers, while Streptococcus sanguinis was lower compared to non-smokers |
| 18 | Al Kawas et al. (35) UAE, 2021 | Subgingival plaques | Cigarettes—31.9 ± 10.43 Shisha—29.1 ± 12.05 Medwakh—24.1 ± 4.33 Non-smokers—38.5 ± 13.6 | Periodontitis | Diversity was equal in all four groups | Prevotella denticola and Treponema sp. OMZ 838 increased abundance in medwakh smokers Streptococcus sanguinis and Tannerella forsythia in shisha smokers Streptococcus mutans and Veillonella in cigarette smokers Firmicutes was the most abundant phylum across all groups |
| 19 | Jia et al. (37) China, 2021 | Saliva | 46.98 ± 11.47 46.74 ± 11.16 46.17 ± 11.48 | N/A | Difference in alpha diversity between smokers and never smokers | At the genus level, Actinomyces, Oribacterium, Atopobium, Prevotella, Veillonella and Campylobacter were increased in smokers. Haemophilus, Kingella, Neisseria, Cardiobacterium, Aggregatibacter, Lautropia, Eikenella and Moraxella were significantly depleted in smokers At the species level, Rothia dentocariosa, Prevotella melaninogenica, Prevotella pallens, Bulleidia moorei and Veillonella dispar were increased in smokers. Rothia aeria, Neisseria oralis, Nesseria subfl ava, Haemophilus parainfluenzae and Actinobacillus parahaemolyticus were depleted in smokers |
| 20 | Li et al. (38) China, 2021 | Saliva | Overall—50–70 years | Effect of drinking | N/A for saliva samples | Increase of Neisseria, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium, and Rothia and a decrease of Streptococcus, Actinobacillus, and Haemophilus in subjects who smoked |
| 21 | Srivastava et al. (27) India, 2021 | Oral rinse | Overall—24–58 years | Health Status—diabetic status, systolic BP, BMI | SLT users showed higher richness diversity higher diversity | SLT users had increase abundance of Fusobacteria, Porphyromonas, Enterococcus, Parvimonas and Desulfobulbus |
| 22 | Wu et al. (46) Iran, 2021 | Saliva | Cigarette smokers—(82.13 ± 38.55) Cigarette and opium users—(77.80 ± 42.83)Never users—(95.10 ± 44.03). | Use of opium | Lower alpha diversity in cigarette users | Enterobacteriaceae was prevalent in cigarette smokers only Abundance of phyla Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes,and Firmicutes were noted in smokers and opium users |
| 23 | Al-Marzooq et al. (36) UAE, 2022 | Supragingival plaque scrapes | 18–62 years | Dental carries | No difference | Firmicutes was the most abundant phylum in the supragingival plaque samples of all types of tobacco smoking Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria were significantly abundant in shisha smokers and other types of smokers Overall Streptococcus was the most abundant genus |
| 24 | Gopinath et al. (15) India, 2022 | Buccal swab | Smokers—33.05 Chewers—32.92 Controls—33.69 | Levels of carbon monoxide exhaled | Increase in diversity with the use of tobacco | Levels of Fusobacterium spp. and Saccharibacterium spp. were increased in smokers in comparison to controls. The relative abundance of Fusobacterium spp., Catonella, and Fretibacterium spp. were significantly higher in smokeless tobacco users |
| 25 | Pfeiffer et al. (47) Germany, 2022 | Nasal swabs Oropharyngeal swab Bronchoalveolar lavage | N/A | Levels of nicotine and metabolite cotinine | Increase diversity with smoking | Firmicutes was relatively higher in abundance in smokers compared to never-smokers Actinobacteria was significantly higher in smokers and ex-smokers comparative with never smokers and Betaproteobacteria was lower in smokers and ex-smokers in oropharyngeal samples |
| 26 | Poulsen et al. (48) 2022, Denmark | Saliva | Overall—68 years | Effect of other lifestyle factors on salivary microbiota | Difference in diversity between smokers and other variables | Genera Veilonella, Streptococcus and Rothia was higher and Neisseria, Haempilus, Pophyromonas and Actinomyces in smokers compared to ex-smokers and never smokers |
| 27 | Sharma (28) 2022, India | Saliva | N/A | Oral microbiome in oral cancer | N/A | Phylum Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria were abundant in tobacco users |
| 28 | Suzuki et al. (41) Japan, 2022 | Saliva Tongue samples | Overall—25.6 ± 2.1 (21–31 years) Smokers—26.8 ± 2.4 Non-smokers—25.0 ± 1.6 | N/A | No difference | Smoker's saliva was enriched with Treponema and Selenomonas. The tongue microbiota from smokers were higher in Dialister and Atopobium |
| 29 | Antonello et al. (49) Italy, 2023 | Saliva | Overall—45 years (18–91 years) | N/A | No changes in alpha diversity | Firmicutes were the most abundant, followed by Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Fusobacteria Increased abundance of Atopobium, Megasphaera, Fretibacterium, and Veillonella when compared to never smokers |
| 30 | Bahuguna et al. (29) India, 2023 | Oral swab | N/A | N/A | Increased alpha diversity in chewers | S. pneumoniae, S. salivarius, and S. Mutans were increased in oaccasional chewers whereas Streptococcus genus was decreased in current chewers. Prevotella and bacteriodes was increased in chewers |
| 31 | Huang et al. (39) China, 2023 | Saliva | Smokers—53 years Non-smokers—49 years | Cardiometabolic risk factors | Alpha diversity was higher in smokers | Higher abundance of phyla Firmicutes and Actinobacteriota Megasphaera, Anaeroglobus, Dialister, Rothia, Atopobium, Actinomyces, Howardella, and Romboutsia and lower relative abundance of the genus Johnsonella in smokers was observed |
| 32 | Sami (50) Sudan, 2023 | Saliva Mucosal and supragingival plaques | Overall—20–70 years | Oral cancer microbiome composition | Alpha diversity was significantly varied between groups | Staphylococcaceae and Corynebacterium_1 and Cardiobacterium was more abundant in smokers Prevotella, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium were prominent in non-smokers |
| 33 | Sawant et al. (30) India, 2023 | Oral rinse | >18 years | N/A | Higher alpha diversity in tobacco chewers and control populations | Leptotrichia, Treponema, Lautropia, spirochaetes and Cardiobacterium was abundant in tobacco chewers |
| 34 | Galvin et al. (51) Ireland, 2023 | Oral swab | Overall—≤40 and ≥60 years | Effect of tooth loss, plaque levels and oral hygiene on oral mucosal colonization | No significant changes in alpha diversity | Reduced abundance of Neisseria, H. parainfluenza, L. mirabilis, R. aeria, S. australis and S. sanguinis and Increased abundance of S. parasanguinis seen in smokers Genera Aggregatibacter, Bergeyella, Capnocytophaga, Selenomonas, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Tannerella, Parvimonas, Filifactor, Bacteroidales [G2] and Peptostreptococcaceae was noted in smokers |
| 35 | Yadav et al. (31) India, 2023 | Saliva | N/A | Alcoholic consumption and vegan diet | N/A | Smokers had higher concentrations of Streptococcus, Prevotella, Veillonella and Tannerella and lower concentrations of Fusobacterium, Selenomonas and Neisseria when compared with non-Smokers Clostridium, Filifactor and Corynebacterium were only found in smokers |
| 36 | Yu et al. (52) Korea, 2024 | Saliva | Overall—20's to 50's | Coffee consumption and Drinking | No difference in alpha diversity between smokers | Abundance of Oribacterium, Atopobium, and 21 Megasphaera, Eubacterium_nodatum_group, Butyrivibrio were higher in smokers |
Characteristics of oral microbiome from the selected studies.
3.3 Differences in the abundance of various taxa between smokers and non-smokers
Firmicutes were identified as the most abundant phylum across most studies compared to other types of phyla, including Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Fusobacteria, which varied in abundance among smokers and non-smokers. Four studies reported Fusobacteria being depleted in non-smokers and higher in smokers (18, 22, 27, 49). In contrast, Fusobacteria, in particular, was lower in smokers and drinkers and more abundant in the control group (42). Studies conducted using an oral rinse and saliva of cigarette and tobacco smokers were enriched with phylum Actinobacteria in current users (25, 28, 46, 49). Similarly, an abundance of Actinobacteria in water pipe smokers was reported in another study (36). Bacteroidetes dominated smoker and chewer samples in two studies (22, 29) compared to another, which reported a lower relative abundance in cigarette smokers compared to e-cigarette users and controls (23). In terms of genera, most studies reported different types of genera in various types of samples from smokers and healthy controls. Streptococcus was relatively reported higher in abundance in smokers in several studies. Prevotella and Veillonella, mostly independently, were also found as predominant genus in tobacco users (21, 24, 31, 34, 37, 38, 42–44, 49, 51), while another data reported a significant depletion in the saliva and supragingival plaques of smokeless tobacco users (50). Neisseria was also observed to be higher among other genera in smokers in two studies conducted in China and Denmark (38, 48). The detailed findings are presented in Table 2.
3.4 Differences in metabolic pathways between smokers and non-smokers
Among the 36 studies included, only 9 of them explored the differences in metabolic pathways (15, 19, 26, 27, 30, 37, 39, 40, 49). Wu et al. reported that xenobiotic biodegradation, amino acid metabolism pathways, glycan biosynthesis, and metabolism were enriched in smokers. Further pathways related to aerobic metabolism [tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, oxidative phosphorylation and nitrate reduction] were depleted in current smokers (19, 49). Similarly, Sato et al. also reported significant differences in pathways related to the TCA cycle, glyoxylate cycle, and several compound biosynthesis and degradation between smokers and non-smokers (40). Jia et al. reported that acid production, amino acid-related enzymes and amino sugar, and nucleotide sugar metabolism were all enriched in smokers (37). A recent study on cigarette smokers reported depletion of pathways related to membrane transport and lipid metabolism in smokers as well as xenobiotics biodegradation and enrichment of pathways related to the metabolism of amino acids, nucleotides, vitamins, terpenoids, polyketides, and glycans (26). In the case of smokeless tobacco users, Srivastava et al. reported an increase in amino acid metabolism, xenobiotic biodegradation, and cellular process and signaling (27). Another study also reported an increase in pathways related to amino acid metabolism, synthesis, and degradation (15). Moreover, Sawant et al, observed an increase in pathways related to reductive TCA cycle and pyrimidine biosynthesis in chewing tobacco users (30).
3.5 Methodological quality of the studies
The quality of the studies can be found in Supplementary Table S1. Five studies were graded as very good; twenty-six articles were of good quality, whereas the rest of them were of satisfactory quality.
4 Discussion
This review aimed to evaluate the available evidence on the impact of the use of tobacco in various forms on healthy humans' oral microbiomes. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic and comprehensive review that summarizes the impact of tobacco use on the oral microbiome. Although there were variations in design, quality of the studies, and characteristics, our results highlight that smoking, regardless of the form, altered the normal equilibrium of the oral microbiome. This evidence is in accordance with previous results obtained analyzing oral microbiomes in culture methods and animal models (53, 54). Despite the limited number of studies, other less-known forms of smoking also seemed to be associated with changes in the oral microbiome.
The current review of data from clinical studies emphasizes that cigarette smoking is found to cause alteration in the oral bacterial profiles. Streptococcus was notably a predominant genus in most studies. In healthy populations, streptococci are common members of the subgingival and supragingival habitats and are early commensal invaders of these environments. However, these commensals have been shown to inhibit the proinflammatory response, which is how they predominantly modulate the immune system and aid in biofilm development (55). Notably, the majority of the other bacteria that were significantly increased in smokers were anaerobes, including Prevotella and Veillonella. This could be related to the deprivation of oral oxygen due to cigarette smoking. Smoking may create a depletion of an oxygen environment in the mouth. It would reflect on the oxygen availability of microbes in the oral cavity, leading to the oral microbial ecology alteration. These were also reported to increase smokers' gut microbiome (47, 56). Veillonella and Actinomyces were the anaerobic bacteria found to be higher in smokers, and these could promote the development of biofilms in the oral cavity (37). Interestingly, Actinomyces have also been enriched in several cancers, including liver, esophagus, colorectal cancer, etc. (57–60). Actinomyces has been shown to the production of various immunological and microbial-related genes, such as TLR2, TLR4, and NF-B, which support the growth of colorectal cancer by controlling inflammation by activating the downstream TLR4/NF-B pathway (60). Actinomyces also has been shown to modulate the presence of several other gram-negative bacteria (60). It also reduces antitumor immunity by preventing CD8+ T cell invasion in colorectal cancer (60). Furthermore, nitrate in vegetables is often converted to oral nitrate, which has the potential to make the oral cavity more acidic, and anaerobic bacteria, especially Actinomyces and Veillonella, promote this conversion (61, 62). This acidic environment has been shown to encourage the growth of biofilms and is linked to oral cavity diseases (63). Decreased local oxygen tension and acidic environment are also likely to promote periodontal anaerobes Fusobacterium, Treponema, and P. gingivalis, which are implicated in the development of periodontitis (64).
The oral cavity is often the first contact with smoke and hence may play an essential role in the degradation of toxic compounds. The depletion of several biodegradation pathways in current smokers suggests potential downstream consequences. A key observation in smokers was the enriched degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other constituents in cigarette smokers (19). Amino acid-related enzymes and amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism were notably abundant in smokers compared to non-smokers (37). Alternatively, these toxic compounds may saturate the enzymes responsible for their degradation, thus killing the bacteria possessing these enzymes (19). The toxic components in cigarette smoke have been shown to alter the oral immune response, and it has been implicated in the pathogenesis of several oral diseases, including periodontitis and oral cancer (8, 64).
Oral epithelial cells actively participate in oral immune response by expressing specific receptors, including toll-like receptors (TLRs). TLRs are receptors in immune response expressed by cell surfaces and internal vesicles and their stimulation lead to activation multiple intracellular signaling cascades (65) One of the main downstream signaling cascades is the NF-KB, a critical transcription factor that encourages the expression of chemokines, cytokines, and co-stimulatory and adhesion molecules (66). Cigarette smoke has been shown to increase the expression of and alter the functional activation of these receptors, including TLR-2, TLR-4, and others (67, 68). Interestingly, the taxa reported to be enriched in smokers including Fusobacteria, Veillonella, Prevotella, and Actinomyces, as well as other microorganisms, also bind to TLR-2 and TLR-4 using their peptidoglycan and lipopolysaccharide cell walls, and these TLR-2 or TLR-4 mediated signaling leads to up-regulation of several proinflammatory pathways (69–74). TLRs and their signaling machinery have been subsequently implicated in a wide range of human diseases, including several cancers, especially oral cancers (75–77).
Tobacco components have also been shown to increase the virulence of specific periodontal pathogens, particularly for P. gingivalis, which has multiple virulence factors (64, 78, 79). Oxidative stress-related proteins in P. gingivalis are up-regulated in the presence of nicotine and other products, which helps in adaptability and survival ability in a low-oxygen environment and biofilms (78, 80). P. gingivalis biofilms have reduced proinflammatory properties, which can help enhance sustainability (80, 81). However, it was interesting to note that the upregulation of P. gingivalis was reported by two published studies only. P. gingivalis is also known to facilitate many microbial colonizers, including S. oralis, Streptococcus gordonii, Actinomyces viscosus, Fusobacterium spp & Prevotella intermedia (79, 82–84), which has been reported to be upregulated by multitude of studies included in the review.
Interestingly, one of the studies reported that the overall oral microbiome composition of former smokers did not differ in comparison to never smokers; this indicates that changes in the oral microbiome influenced by smoking are permanent (19). Such findings are encouraging and can lay the foundation for microbiome-targeted approaches for smoking cessation and disease prevention.
In our review, we noticed that only very few studies have explored the impact of use of shisha or waterpipe on the oral microbiome. It is now known that waterpipe smoke constitutes many of the same toxicants and is associated with the risk of disease (36). Relative to water pipe smoking, out of the four studies included, Streptococcus sanguinis was found to be higher in smokers (35). Overall, phyla Firmicutes was the most abundant phylum in those combined with other forms of tobacco smoking such as medwakh and cigarettes (35, 36). Few of these bacterial species are known to be a common cause of human respiratory diseases and infections, notably where tobacco consumption is a significant risk factor (85, 86). It is pretty unclear as to what specific bacteria taxa are associated with water pipes due to the scarcity of resources available; however, this could be mainly influenced by the habits of the subjects and other exposures as well.
Smokeless tobacco can also impact oral microbiota, increasing the risk for oral disease pathologies. Due to the nicotine concentration in smokeless tobacco, the growth of S.mutans places the user at an increased risk for dental caries (87). Hung et al. suggested that these tobacco products can increase caries development by fostering S.mutans formation on tooth surfaces (88). Further, streptococci species are known to produce acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde, a carcinogenic compound, production has been proposed as a mechanism by which bacteria can contribute to oral carcinogenesis (34). This is supported by abundant levels of Streptococcus genera that indicated alterations in smokeless tobacco users compared to controls (15, 27). Furthermore, Fusobacteria abundant in smokeless tobacco users is an opportunistic pathogen and has been known to be capable of growth in acidic conditions (15). Fusobacteria has reportedly been noted in human colorectal carcinoma, suggesting it may have originated from the oral cavity. They promote tumor development by inducing inflammation and the immune response of the host to produce inflammatory factors (89). In addition, these species have reportedly been found to be abundant in head and neck cancer samples (90).
This review noted that sample collection sites in the oral cavity subsequently differed within the studies. This site variation could produce significant bias as the sites may vary in microbial composition. For instance, salivary samples may reflect the bacteria shed from the total oral cavity, whereas tissue sampling would be a deeper representation of the microbiome concerning the host (91). Hence, it wouldn't be rational to assume the impacts of smoking caused by components of tobacco smoke are similar across all microenvironments (44). Further studies are recommended to elucidate the different ecology of these environments, as interpreting the data of a mixture of sample types may obscure meaningful associations and patterns.
The current review highlights that the studies reported until now relied on genetic characterization of the microbiome using 16S sequencing methodology without adequate examination of this functionality. Only three studies employed shotgun sequencing (28, 33, 44). Given that shotgun metagenomic sequencing provides better strain level resolution and functional insights, the field should focus more on this sophisticated methodology, in combination with metabolomics and metaproteomic, in decoding host-microbiome interactions. Microbiome architecture can be highly varied among humans, with inter-individual variation presenting a substantial challenge, necessitating the development of sophisticated machine learning processes that predict the impact of microbiome and metabolites on physiological and pathological situations. Despite these constraints, understanding the ubiquitous activities of microbially regulated metabolites can open up a new avenue for enhancing oral health. One of the potential clinical implication of deciphering host-microbial interactions would be management strategies for tobacco-related illnesses, including smoking cessation strategies by altering the microbiota with probiotics, prebiotics, and other related methods. There is currently insufficient data despite the possibility that several preventive and therapeutic applications might be effective in theory. These are primarily related to the possibility of eubiosis being restored upon smoking cessation. As a matter of fact, we have uncovered a dearth of research on this aspect considering the abundance of studies on tobacco use and oral microbiota and needs to be explored further.
One of the limitations of the current review is the heterogeneity in the methods and the outcome reporting in the included studies, which hindered comparability and quantitative analysis. However, this is a common limitation reported by most of the reviews on microbiome, because of the inherent heterogeneity in the methodology. Further, we have included articles published only in the English language.
5 Conclusion
In this review, it is majorly observed that smoking and smokeless tobacco influence the oral microbial community composition, and there is a definitive shift in the abundance of oral taxa favoring an anaerobic environment, thus promoting a proinflammatory milieu. It is suggested that smoking may perturb the balance of the oral microbiome by affecting the relationships between bacteria and altering their metabolic pathways. However, smokeless and smoking tobacco are a mixture of multiple toxicants, and their direct impact on the oral microbiome is yet unclear. The effect of tobacco on microbial metabolism needs to be elucidated and is critical to our understanding of the etiology of oral and systemic diseases, as oral microbial dysbiosis are associated with several systemic conditions.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
NSe: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. NSh: Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing. DG: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CY: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declare no financial support was received for the research or authorship of this article.
The APC is funded by Ajman University.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/froh.2024.1310334/full#supplementary-material
References
1.
DeoPNDeshmukhR. Oral microbiome: unveiling the fundamentals. J. Oral Maxillofac Pathol. (2019) 23(1):122–8. 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_304_18
2.
LamontRJKooHHajishengallisG. The oral Microbiota: dynamic communities and host interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. (2018) 16(12):12. 10.1038/s41579-018-0089-x
3.
SharmaNBhatiaSSodhiASBatraN. Oral microbiome and health. AIMS Microbiol. (2018) 4(1):42–66. 10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.42
4.
LiXLiuYYangXLiCSongZ. The oral microbiota: community composition, influencing factors, pathogenesis, and interventions. Front Microbiol. (2022) 13:895537. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.895537
5.
KushwahaSSMultaniRKKushwahaNSGautamSJindalDGAroraKSet alSaliva is a potential diagnostic tool to evaluate the relationship between oral microbiome and potentially malignant disorders for prevention of malignant transformation. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2021) 22(1):125–9. Scopus. 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.1.125
6.
GopinathDKunnath MenonRChun WieCBanerjeeMPandaSMandalDet alSalivary bacterial shifts in oral leukoplakia resemble the dysbiotic oral cancer bacteriome. J Oral Microbiol. (2020) 13(1):1857998. 10.1080/20002297.2020.1857998
7.
Van DykeTEBartoldPMReynoldsEC. The nexus between periodontal inflammation and dysbiosis. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:511. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00511
8.
GopinathDMenonRKBanerjeeMSu YuxiongRBotelhoMGJohnsonNW. Culture-independent studies on bacterial dysbiosis in oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. (2019) 139:31–40. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.04.018
9.
CaoYFanningSProosSJordanKSrikumarS. A review on the applications of next generation sequencing technologies as applied to food-related microbiome studies. Front Microbiol. (2017) 8:1829. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01829
10.
Perez-WarnisherMTde MiguelMPCSeijoLM. Tobacco use worldwide: legislative efforts to curb consumption. Ann Glob Health. (n.d.) 84(4):571–9. 10.29024/aogh.2362
11.
ChatterjeeNWalkerGC. Mechanisms of DNA damage, repair and mutagenesis. Environ Mol Mutagen. (2017) 58(5):235–63. 10.1002/em.22087
12.
JiangYZhouXChengLLiM. The impact of smoking on subgingival microflora: from periodontal health to disease. Front Microbiol. (2020) 11:66. 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00066
13.
KhanIBaiYZhaLUllahNUllahHShahSRHet alMechanism of the gut microbiota colonization resistance and enteric pathogen infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. (2021) 11:716299. 10.3389/fcimb.2021.716299
14.
Impacts of cigarette smoking on immune responsiveness: Up and down or upside down?—PMC. (n.d.). Available online at:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5352117/ (retrieved January 7, 2023)
15.
GopinathDWieCCBanerjeeMThangaveluLKumarRPNallaswamyDet alCompositional profile of mucosal bacteriome of smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Clin Oral Investig. (2022) 26(2):1647–56. 10.1007/s00784-021-04137-7
16.
MoherDShamseerLClarkeMGhersiDLiberatiAPetticrewMet alPreferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. (2015) 4:1. 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
17.
WellsGSheaBO'ConnellDRobertsonJPetersonJWelchVet alThe Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analysis. (2014). Available online at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale-(NOS)-for-Assessing-the-Wells-Wells/c293fb316b6176154c3fdbb8340a107d9c8c82bf (accessed December 06, 2023).
18.
MasonMRPreshawPMNagarajaHNDabdoubSMRahmanAKumarPS. The subgingival microbiome of clinically healthy current and never smokers. ISME J. (2015) 9(1):268–72. 10.1038/ismej.2014.114
19.
WuJPetersBADominianniCZhangYPeiZYangLet alCigarette smoking and the oral microbiome in a large study of American adults. ISME J. (2016) 10(10):2435–46. 10.1038/ismej.2016.37
20.
HernandezBYZhuXGoodmanMTGatewoodRMendiolaPQuinataKet alBetel nut chewing, oral premalignant lesions, and the oral microbiome. PLoS One. (2017) 12(2):e0172196. 10.1371/journal.pone.0172196
21.
YuGPhillipsSGailMHGoedertJJHumphrysMSRavelJet alThe effect of cigarette smoking on the oral and nasal microbiota. Microbiome. (2017) 5(1):3. 10.1186/s40168-016-0226-6
22.
Rodríguez-RabassaMLópezPRodríguez-SantiagoRECasesAFeliciMSánchezRet alCigarette smoking modulation of Saliva microbial composition and cytokine levels. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15(11):E2479. 10.3390/ijerph15112479
23.
StewartCJAuchtungTAAjamiNJVelasquezKSmithDPDe La GarzaRet alEffects of tobacco smoke and electronic cigarette vapor exposure on the oral and gut microbiota in humans: a pilot study. PeerJ. (2018) 6:e4693. 10.7717/peerj.4693
24.
BeghiniFRensonAZolnikCPGeistlingerLUsykMMoodyTUet alTobacco exposure associated with oral microbiota oxygen utilization in the New York city health and nutrition examination study. Ann Epidemiol. (2019) 34:18–25.e3. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2019.03.005
25.
YangYZhengWCaiQ-YShrubsoleMJPeiZBruckerRet alCigarette smoking and oral microbiota in low-income and African-American populations. J Epidemiol Community Health. (2019) 73(12):1108–15. 10.1136/jech-2019-212474
26.
LinDHutchisonKEPortilloSVegaraVEllingsonJMLiuJet alAssociation between the oral microbiome and brain resting state connectivity in smokers. NeuroImage. (2019) 200:121–31. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.023
27.
SrivastavaAMishraSVermaD. Characterization of oral bacterial composition of adult smokeless tobacco users from healthy Indians using 16S rDNA analysis. Microb Ecol. (2021) 82(4):1061–73. 10.1007/s00248-021-01711-0
28.
Department of Biotechnology, Maharaj Vinayak Global University, Jaipur Rajasthan, India, & SharmaMK. Metagenomic analysis of oral microbiota among oral cancer patients and tobacco chewers in Rajasthan, India. Bioinformation. (2022) 18(9):757–63. 10.6026/97320630018757
29.
BahugunaMHoodaSMohanLGuptaRKDiwanP. Identifying oral microbiome alterations in adult betel quid chewing population of Delhi, India. PLoS One. (2023) 18(1):e0278221. 10.1371/journal.pone.0278221
30.
SawantSDugadJParikhDSrinivasanSSinghH. Oral microbial signatures of tobacco chewers and oral cancer patients in India. Pathogens. (2023) 12(1):78. 10.3390/pathogens12010078
31.
YadavSTripathiVSaranV. Identification of habit specific bacteria in human saliva through next-generation sequencing. Forensic Sci Int. (2023) 353:111871. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111871
32.
VallèsYInmanCKPetersBAAliRWarethLAAbdulleAet alTypes of tobacco consumption and the oral microbiome in the United Arab Emirates healthy future (UAEHFS) pilot study. Sci Rep. (2018) 8(1):11327. 10.1038/s41598-018-29730-x
33.
Al BatainehMTDashNRElkhazendarMAlnusairatDMHDarwishIMIAl-HajjajMSet alRevealing oral microbiota composition and functionality associated with heavy cigarette smoking. J Transl Med. (2020) 18(1):421. 10.1186/s12967-020-02579-3
34.
HalboubEAl-Ak’haliMSAlamirAHHomeidaHEBaraniyaDChenTet alTongue microbiome of smokeless tobacco users. BMC Microbiol. (2020) 20(1):201. 10.1186/s12866-020-01883-8
35.
Al KawasSAl-MarzooqFRahmanBShearstonJASaadHBenzinaDet alThe impact of smoking different tobacco types on the subgingival microbiome and periodontal health: a pilot study. Sci Rep. (2021) 11(1):1113. 10.1038/s41598-020-80937-3
36.
Al-MarzooqFAl KawasSRahmanBShearstonJASaadHBenzinaDet alSupragingival microbiome alternations as a consequence of smoking different tobacco types and its relation to dental caries. Sci Rep. (2022) 12(1):2861. 10.1038/s41598-022-06907-z
37.
JiaY-JLiaoYHeY-QZhengM-QTongX-TXueW-Qet alAssociation between oral microbiota and cigarette smoking in the Chinese population. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. (2021) 11:658203. 10.3389/fcimb.2021.658203
38.
LiZLiuYDouLZhangYHeSZhaoDet alThe effects of smoking and drinking on the oral and esophageal microbiota of healthy people. Ann Transl Med. (2021) 9(15):1244. 10.21037/atm-21-3264
39.
HuangQWuXZhouXSunZShenJKongMet alAssociation of cigarette smoking with oral bacterial microbiota and cardiometabolic health in Chinese adults. BMC Microbiol. (2023) 23(1):346. 10.1186/s12866-023-03061-y
40.
SatoNKakutaMUchinoEHasegawaTKojimaRKobayashiWet alThe relationship between cigarette smoking and the tongue microbiome in an east Asian population. J Oral Microbiol. (2020) 12(1):1742527. 10.1080/20002297.2020.1742527
41.
SuzukiNNakanoYYonedaMHirofujiTHaniokaT. The effects of cigarette smoking on the salivary and tongue microbiome. Clin Exp Dent Res. (2022) 8(1):449–56. 10.1002/cre2.489
42.
ThomasAMGleber-NettoFOFernandesGRAmorimMBarbosaLFFranciscoALNet alAlcohol and tobacco consumption affects bacterial richness in oral cavity mucosa biofilms. BMC Microbiol. (2014) 14(1):250. 10.1186/s12866-014-0250-2
43.
Al-ZyoudWHajjoRAbu-SiniyehAHajjajS. Salivary microbiome and cigarette smoking: a first of its kind investigation in Jordan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17(1):256. 10.3390/ijerph17010256
44.
WirthRMarótiGMihókRSimon-FialaDAntalMPapBet alA case study of salivary microbiome in smokers and non-smokers in Hungary: analysis by shotgun metagenome sequencing. J Oral Microbiol. (2020) 12(1):1773067. 10.1080/20002297.2020.1773067
45.
BašićKPerošKBošnjakZŠutejI. Subgingival microbiota profile in association with cigarette smoking in young adults: a cross-sectional study. Dent J. (2021) 9(12):150. 10.3390/dj9120150
46.
WuZHanYCaporasoJGBokulichNMohamadkhaniAMoayyedkazemiAet alCigarette smoking and opium use in relation to the oral microbiota in Iran. Microbiol Spectr. (2021) 9(2):e00138–21. 10.1128/Spectrum.00138-21
47.
PfeifferSHerzmannCGaedeKIKovacevicDKrauss-EtschmannSSchloterM. Different responses of the oral, nasal and lung microbiomes to cigarette smoke. Thorax. (2022) 77(2):191–5. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-216153
48.
PoulsenCSNygaardNConstanciasFStankevicEKernTWitteDRet alAssociation of general health and lifestyle factors with the salivary microbiota—lessons learned from the ADDITION-PRO cohort. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. (2022) 12:1055117. 10.3389/fcimb.2022.1055117
49.
AntonelloGBlosteinFBhaumikDDavisEGögeleMMelottiRet alSmoking and salivary microbiota: a cross-sectional analysis of an Italian alpine population. Sci Rep. (2023) 13(1):18904. 10.1038/s41598-023-42474-7
50.
SamiAElimairiIRyanCAStantonCPatangiaDRossRP. Altered oral microbiome in Sudanese toombak smokeless tobacco users carries a newly emerging risk of squamous cell carcinoma development and progression. Sci Rep. (2023) 13(1):6645. 10.1038/s41598-023-32892-y
51.
GalvinSAnishchukSHealyCMMoranGP. Smoking, tooth loss and oral hygiene practices have significant and site-specific impacts on the microbiome of oral mucosal surfaces: a cross-sectional study. J Oral Microbiol. (2023) 15(1):2263971. 10.1080/20002297.2023.2263971
52.
YuK-MChoH-SLeeA-MLeeJ-WLimS-K. Analysis of the influence of host lifestyle (coffee consumption, drinking, and smoking) on Korean oral microbiome. Forensic Sci Int Genet. (2024) 68:102942. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102942
53.
ShakhatrehMAKKhabourOFAlzoubiKHMasadehMMHusseinEIBsharaGN. Alterations in oral microbial flora induced by waterpipe tobacco smoking. Int J Gen Med. (2018) 1:47–54. 10.2147/IJGM.S150553
54.
JinJGuoLVonTungelnLVanlandinghamMCernigliaCEChenH. Smokeless tobacco impacts oral microbiota in a Syrian golden hamster cheek pouch carcinogenesis model. Anaerobe. (2018) 52:29–42. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.05.010
55.
CosseauCDevineDADullaghanEGardyJLChikatamarlaAGellatlySet alThe commensal Streptococcus salivarius K12 downregulates the innate immune responses of human epithelial cells and promotes host-microbe homeostasis. Infect Immun. (2008) 76(9):4163–75. 10.1128/IAI.00188-08
56.
AntinozziMGiffiMSiniNGallèFValerianiFDe VitoCet alCigarette smoking and human gut microbiota in healthy adults: a systematic review. Biomedicines. (2022) 10(2):510. 10.3390/biomedicines10020510
57.
WangQRaoYGuoXLiuNLiuSWenPet alOral microbiome in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Sci Rep. (2019) 9(1):19055. 10.1038/s41598-019-55667-w
58.
LiDXiWZhangZRenLDengCChenJet alOral microbial community analysis of the patients in the progression of liver cancer. Microb Pathog. (2020) 149:104479. 10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104479
59.
LuHRenZLiALiJXuSZhangHet alTongue coating microbiome data distinguish patients with pancreatic head cancer from healthy controls. J Oral Microbiol. (2019) 11(1):1563409. 10.1080/20002297.2018.1563409
60.
XuZLvZChenFZhangYXuZHuoJet alDysbiosis of human tumor microbiome and aberrant residence of Actinomyces in tumor-associated fibroblasts in young-onset colorectal cancer. Front Immunol. (2022 Sep 2) 13:1008975. 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1008975
61.
LiHThompsonICarterPWhiteleyABaileyMLeifertCet alSalivary nitrate—an ecological factor in reducing oral acidity. Oral Microbiol Immunol. (2007) 22(1):67–71. 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2007.00313.x
62.
HydeERAndradeFVaksmanZParthasarathyKJiangHParthasarathyDKet alMetagenomic analysis of nitrate-reducing bacteria in the oral cavity: implications for nitric oxide homeostasis. PloS One. (2014) 9(3):e88645. 10.1371/journal.pone.0088645
63.
Nolan-KenneyRWuFHuJYangLKellyDLiHet alThe association between smoking and gut microbiome in Bangladesh. Nicotine Tob Res. (2020) 22(8):1339–46. 10.1093/ntr/ntz220
64.
ZhangJYuJDouJHuPGuoQ. The impact of smoking on subgingival plaque and the development of periodontitis: a literature review. Front Oral Health. (2021) 2:751099. 10.3389/froh.2021.751099
65.
TakedaKAkiraS. Toll-like receptors in innate immunity. Int Immunol. (2005) 17(1):1–14. 10.1093/intimm/dxh186
66.
KawaiTAkiraS. Signaling to NF-kappaB by toll-like receptors. Trends Mol Med. (2007) 13(11):460–9. 10.1016/j.molmed.2007.09.002
67.
SemlaliAWitoledCAlanaziMRouabhiaM. Whole cigarette smoke increased the expression of TLRs, HBDs, and proinflammory cytokines by human gingival epithelial cells through different signaling pathways. PLoS One. (2012) 7(12):e52614. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052614
68.
PaceEFerraroMSienaLMelisMMontalbanoAMJohnsonMet alCigarette smoke increases toll-like receptor 4 and modifies lipopolysaccharide-mediated responses in airway epithelial cells. Immunology. (2008) 124(3):401–11. 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2007.02788.x
69.
VarmaASSuragimathGPisalADisalePRZopeS. Toll-like receptors: molecular microbe sensors in periodontium. World J Dent. (2019) 10(5):396–401. 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1666
70.
SunYShuRZhangM-ZWuA-P. Toll-like receptor 4 signaling plays a role in triggering periodontal infection. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. (2008) 52(3):362–9. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2008.00386.x
71.
DécanisNSavignacKRouabhiaM. Farnesol promotes epithelial cell defense against Candida albicans through toll-like receptor 2 expression, interleukin-6 and human beta-defensin 2 production. Cytokine. (2009) 45(2):132–40. 10.1016/j.cyto.2008.11.011
72.
StathopoulouPGBenakanakereMRGaliciaJCKinaneDF. Epithelial cell proinflammatory cytokine response differs across dental plaque bacterial species. J Clin Periodontol. (2010) 37(1):24–9. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01505.x
73.
MoriYYoshimuraAUkaiTLienEEspevikTHaraY. Immunohistochemical localization of toll-like receptors 2 and 4 in gingival tissue from patients with periodontitis. Oral Microbiol Immunol. (2003) 18(1):54–8. 10.1034/j.1399-302x.2003.180109.x
74.
VuATBabaTChenXLeTAKinoshitaHXieYet alStaphylococcus aureus membrane and diacylated lipopeptide induce thymic stromal lymphopoietin in keratinocytes through the toll-like receptor 2-toll-like receptor 6 pathway. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2010) 126(5):985–93, 993.e1–3. 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.09.002
75.
PisaniLPEstadellaDRibeiroDA. The role of toll like receptors (TLRs) in oral carcinogenesis. Anticancer Res. (2017) 37(10):5389–94. 10.21873/anticanres.11965
76.
FukataMChenAVamadevanASCohenJBreglioKKrishnareddySet alToll-like receptor-4 promotes the development of colitis-associated colorectal tumors. Gastroenterology. (2007) 133(6):1869–81. 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.09.008
77.
LeeC-HWuC-LShiauA-L. Toll-like receptor 4 signaling promotes tumor growth. Journal of Immunotherapy (Hagerstown, Md.: 1997). (2010) 33(1):73–82. 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181b7a0a4
78.
CogoKde AndradeALabateCABergamaschiCCBertoLAFrancoGCNet alProteomic analysis of Porphyromonas gingivalis exposed to nicotine and cotinine. J Periodontal Res. (2012) 47(6):766–75. 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2012.01494.x
79.
BagaitkarJDaepCAPatelCKRenaudDEDemuthDRScottDA. Tobacco smoke augments Porphyromonas gingivalis-Streptococcus gordonii biofilm formation. PLoS One. (2011) 6(11):e27386. 10.1371/journal.pone.0027386
80.
HowKYSongKPChanKG. Porphyromonas gingivalis: an overview of periodontopathic pathogen below the gum line. Front Microbiol. (2016) 7:53. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00053
81.
OlsenILambrisJDHajishengallisG. Porphyromonas gingivalis disturbs host-commensal homeostasis by changing complement function. J Oral Microbiol. (2017) 9(1):1340085. 10.1080/20002297.2017.1340085
82.
HiratsukaKAbikoYHayakawaMItoTSasaharaHTakiguchiH. Role of Porphyromonas gingivalis 40-kDa outer membrane protein in the aggregation of P. gingivalis vesicles and Actinomyces viscosus. Arch Oral Biol. (1992) 37(9):717–24. 10.1016/0003-9969(92)90078-m
83.
NagataHIwasakiMMaedaKKuboniwaMHashinoEToeMet alIdentification of the binding domain of Streptococcus oralis glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase for Porphyromonas gingivalis major fimbriae. Infect Immun. (2009) 77(11):5130–8. 10.1128/IAI.00439-09
84.
SufaruI-GMartuM-ASolomonSM. Advances in periodontal pathogens. Microorganisms. (2022) 10(7):1439. 10.3390/microorganisms10071439
85.
TomarSLHechtSSJaspersIGregoryRLStepanovI. Oral health effects of combusted and smokeless tobacco products. Adv Dent Res. (2019) 30(1):4–10. 10.1177/0022034519872480
86.
HaniJAbdel NourGMattaJJazzarBPfafflMWHanna-WakimLet alShisha microbiota: the good, the bad and the not so ugly. BMC Res Notes. (2018) 11(1):446. 10.1186/s13104-018-3553-9
87.
LiuMJinJPanHFengJCernigliaCEYangMet alEffect of smokeless tobacco products on human oral bacteria growth and viability. Anaerobe. (2016) 42:152–61. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.10.006
88.
HuangRLiMGregoryRL. Effect of nicotine on growth and metabolism of Streptococcus mutans. Eur J Oral Sci. (2012) 120(4):319–25. 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2012.00971.x
89.
WuJLiQFuX. Fusobacterium nucleatum contributes to the carcinogenesis of colorectal cancer by inducing inflammation and suppressing host immunity. Transl Oncol. (2019) 12(6):846–51. 10.1016/j.tranon.2019.03.003
90.
McIlvannaELindenGJCraigSGLundyFTJamesJA. Fusobacterium nucleatum and oral cancer: a critical review. BMC Cancer. (2021) 21(1):1212. 10.1186/s12885-021-08903-4
91.
Su MunLWye LumSKong Yuiin SzeGHock YoongCChing YungKKah LokLet alAssociation of microbiome with oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review of the metagenomic studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18(14):7224. 10.3390/ijerph18147224
Summary
Keywords
microbiome, oral, tobacco, smokers, microbiota, chewers
Citation
Senaratne NLM, Yung on C, Shetty NY and Gopinath D (2024) Effect of different forms of tobacco on the oral microbiome in healthy adults: a systematic review. Front. Oral. Health 5:1310334. doi: 10.3389/froh.2024.1310334
Received
09 October 2023
Accepted
11 January 2024
Published
20 February 2024
Volume
5 - 2024
Edited by
Praveen S. Jodalli, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, India
Reviewed by
Atrey Pai Khot, King George's Medical University, India
Ramya Iyer, KM Shah Dental College and Hospital, India
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Senaratne, Yung on, Shetty and Gopinath.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Divya Gopinath d.gopinath@ajman.ac.ae
ORCID Divya Gopinath orcid.org/0000-0002-4279-7420
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.