Trivia: One-Pack-a-Day Smoking Habit = 2 Teeth/10 Years

Posted by Alex in Daily Trivia, Medicine on March 3, 2008 at 3:04 am


One-pack-a-day smoking habit will cost you at least 2 teeth every 10 years.

According to 30-year studies at Tufts University, chain smokers lost an average of 2.9 teeth after 10 years of smoking one pack a day. Non-smokers lost an average of 1.3 teeth after 10 years. A smoker that quit will reduce his or her toothloss to 1.7 teeth. (Source)



Previous post
this post? Please email this            
Next post

FROM THE NEATORAMA ONLINE STORE » more



COMMENT

13 comments to "Trivia: One-Pack-a-Day Smoking Habit = 2 Teeth/10 Years"

  1. clinton labombard
    March 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 am

    It could help if they included those who brushed their teeth in this study…

  2. Moebius
    March 3rd, 2008 at 5:38 am

    Oh, and they forgot to tell you that your genitals wil fall off too…

  3. MoonCake
    March 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 am

    that’s exactly what i was going to say! not only that, but when you quit smoking, you tend to adopt more healthy practices, which may include brushing your teeth more often than when you smoked.

  4. Jimbo
    March 3rd, 2008 at 6:07 am

    Just more junk science results.

  5. kuanes
    March 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 am

    agreeing with #4.

    did they study the dental records of these people before they started smoking? perhaps they had 10-12 cavities before they started smoking.

    i can’t stand this new sensationalistic reporting of scientific studies/research/whatever. focusing on a small amount of the data always means you’re going to see some sort of pattern that doesn’t jibe with the bigger picture.

  6. Sid Morrison
    March 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 am

    Mooncake is spot on. Studies like this are rife with cross-correlation problems that make assigning causality impossible.

    People who smoke are going to be less healthy-living oriented in general. Ergo, it makes sense that they probably (in aggregate) brush & floss less, visit the dentist less, and consume more sugary food & drinks. Those things are all known to correlate with increased tooth loss, so it’s probable THEY are the problems and not smoking itself. You could also probably extend the study and find that smokers tend to drink more alcohol as well and vice-versa. So what causes what? I’m not a fan of smoking, but its most zealous opponents only make themselves out to be kooks/biased/idiots when they publish such fundamentally flawed “research”. Were there really PhDs involved in this??

  7. Paul
    March 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    I will be telling this to smokers!!!

  8. Shish
    March 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Chain smokers? One pack a day? Any chain smoker worth the name could get through a pack in an hour. Heh heh, militant non-smokers seem to think if they smell smoke twice a day that’s chain smoking.

  9. Justin
    March 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Now let’s find out how many of you insulting this study are smokers! :)

  10. Melissa
    March 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    I smoked about a pack a day for about ten years, and quit a little over a year ago. I didn’t lose any teeth. And my husband who quit smoking like four years ago and never smoked nearly as much or as frequently as I did has lost two teeth.

    But I think there’s a lot more to it than just smoking. There could be other factors. Like stress levels of smokers versus non-smokers? Or diets? Or dental care coverage? When I worked in the restaurant industry, most of the people I worked with were smokers, and most were also uninsured. I could see how having dental insurance could help you keep your teeth longer.

  11. Shish
    March 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    I’m not

  12. jesus pufferfish
    March 3rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    fluoride is poison, only sheep use it vs. healthy toothpaste.

  13. Sid Morrison
    March 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    @Justin-
    I am NOT a smoker, nor ever have been. I hate smoking and being around smoke. That said, I also hate the credence given by the press to bullshit studies even more… If you wish to advance an agenda (and don’t we all?), it only *hurts* your case to attempt to do so via flawed arguments. It’s tougher to design a study that attempts to isolate the varied factors and eliminate (or at least minimize) cross-correlation, but it’s not impossible. ‘Tis only an incompetent / lazy / biased (choose one) academician who would have designed so flawed a study.

    Also see my critique on the study that “shows that kids lose weight by eating breakfast”. More fodder.


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS