Knowledge and Perceptions of Dentists Regarding E-Cigarettes: Implications for Oral Health and Public Awareness and Education

Background/Objectives: The rising popularity of e-cigarette use is creating new challenges for oral healthcare. Factors such as targeted marketing, appealing flavors, and the perception that e-cigarettes are a safer alternative to traditional smoking have contributed to their widespread adoption. This trend is particularly prevalent among young adults and teenagers, many of whom turn to e-cigarettes despite having no prior history of regular cigarette use. This study aimed to evaluate dentists’ knowledge and perceptions regarding e-cigarettes, focusing on their health effects, regulatory status, and potential risks to oral health. Assessing dentists’ knowledge of e-cigarette risks is important, as they guide patients on the potential oral health dangers of vaping. E-cigarette use has been linked to several oral health problems. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 189 dentists in Kosovo, comprising both general dentists and specialists. The questionnaire assessed participants’ awareness of e-cigarettes’ FDA approval status, their perceptions of health impacts, and their understanding of e-cigarettes’ association with oral conditions such as caries, periodontal disease, and oral cancer. Data were analyzed using SPSS 22, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The findings revealed significant knowledge gaps, with 74.1% of respondents being uncertain about the FDA approval status of e-cigarettes and 82.0% recognizing their harmful effects on general and oral health. Nearly half (49.7%) of the participants identified e-cigarettes as a potential risk factor for caries, while 66.1% and 64.6% associated their use with oral cancer and periodontal disease, respectively. Gender and professional specialization did not significantly influence these perceptions. Conclusions: Dentists need better education on the risks of e-cigarette use, including their harmful effects on oral health. Incorporating this knowledge into dental curricula and professional training is essential to give dentists the information needed to advise patients effectively. Raising public awareness through dental health professionals can help mitigate the oral health risks associated with e-cigarettes

European Laryngological Society position paper on laryngeal dysplasia Part II: diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up

Purpose of review To give an overview of the current knowledge regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of laryngeal dysplasia (LD) and to highlight the contributions of recent literature. The diagnosis of LD largely relies on endoscopic procedures and on histopathology. Diagnostic efficiency of endoscopy may be improved using videolaryngostroboscopy (VLS) and bioendoscopic tools such as Narrow Band Imaging (NBI) or Storz Professional Image Enhancement System (SPIES). Current histological classifications are not powerful enough to clearly predict the risk to carcinoma evolution and technical issues such as sampling error, variation in epithelial thickness and inflammation hamper pathological examination. Almost all dysplasia grading systems are effective in different ways. The 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) system should prove to be an improvement as it is slightly more reproducible and easier for the non-specialist pathologist to apply. To optimize treatment decisions, surgeons should know how their pathologist grades samples and preferably audit their transformation rates locally. Whether carcinoma in situ should be used as part of such classification remains contentious and pathologists should agree with their clinicians whether they find this additional grade useful in treatment decisions. Recently, different studies have defined the possible utility of different biomarkers in risk classification. The main treatment modality for LD is represented by transoral laser microsurgery. Radiotherapy may be indicated in specific circumstances such as multiple recurrence or wide-field lesions. Medical treatment currently does not have a significant role in the management of LD. Follow-up for patients treated with LD is a fundamental part of their care and investigations may be supported by the same techniques used during diagnosis (VLS and NBI/SPIES)