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)
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.
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??
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.
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.