Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 12;14(1):154-165.
doi: 10.3390/jox14010009.

Evaluation of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effects in Buccal Mucosal Cells in Non-Smokers and Users of Traditional Combustible Tobacco Products and Non-Combustible Alternatives

Affiliations

Evaluation of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effects in Buccal Mucosal Cells in Non-Smokers and Users of Traditional Combustible Tobacco Products and Non-Combustible Alternatives

Antonija Tadin et al. J Xenobiot. .

Abstract

Aims/objectives: The aim of this cross-sectional observational study was to investigate cytogenetic damage to the buccal mucosa in non-smokers and consumers of traditional combustible tobacco products and non-combustible alternatives.

Methods: A total of 160 participants were divided into four groups according to the type of product used, including non-smokers, users of conventional combustible tobacco (cigarettes), heated tobacco, and electronic, tobacco-free vapor products (e-cigarettes). Buccal mucosa samples were analyzed using the micronucleus cytome assay to assess cytotoxic and genotoxic damage.

Results: E-cigarette users showed significantly higher values for all tested parameters in the micronucleus test compared to non-smokers (p < 0.05). Similarly, users of tobacco heating products showed an increase in all parameters (p < 0.05), with the exception of the number of cells with micronuclei. Conventional cigarette smokers showed a notable increase in the number of binucleated cells and cells with karyorrhexis and karyolysis (p ≤ 0.05). When assessing the differences between users of traditional combustible tobacco products and non-combustible alternatives, these did not appear to be significant, except for e-cigarette users, who had significantly more cells with condensed chromatin (p ≤ 0.001), while users of tobacco heating products had more pyknotic cells (p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion: The results of this study underscore the heightened occurrence of cytotoxic and genotoxic damage in users of both conventional combustible tobacco products and non-combustible alternatives compared to non-smokers, emphasizing the detrimental impact of these products on the oral mucosa.

Keywords: buccal mucosa; cytogenetic; cytotoxicity; e-cigarette; genotoxicity; heated tobacco products; micronucleus assay; smoking.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Multiple regression analysis of predictive factors for cytogenetic parameters (number of cells with micronuclei, nuclear buds, and binucleated cells) in buccal mucosa.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Multiple regression analysis of predictive factors for cytogenetic parameters (number of cells with karyolysis, karyorrhexis, pyknosis, and condensed chromatin) in buccal mucosa.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. West R. Tobacco smoking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol. Health. 2017;32:1018–1036. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2017.1325890. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vukas J., Mallock-Ohnesorg N., Ruther T., Pieper E., Romano-Brandt L., Stoll Y., Hoehne L., Burgmann N., Laux P., Luch A., et al. Two Different Heated Tobacco Products vs. Cigarettes: Comparison of Nicotine Delivery and Subjective Effects in Experienced Users. Toxics. 2023;11:525. doi: 10.3390/toxics11060525. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Soleimani F., Dobaradaran S., De-la-Torre G.E., Schmidt T.C., Saeedi R. Content of toxic components of cigarette, cigarette smoke vs cigarette butts: A comprehensive systematic review. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022;813:152667. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152667. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Giovacchini C.X., Crotty A.L.E., Que L.G. Electronic Cigarettes: A Pro-Con Review of the Current Literature. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2022;10:2843–2851. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.07.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gordon T., Karey E., Rebuli M.E., Escobar Y.N.H., Jaspers I., Chen L.C. E-Cigarette Toxicology. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2022;62:301–322. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-042921-084202. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources