Experts refute claims of e-cigarettes causing dental damage

Feb.17.2023
Experts refute claims of e-cigarettes causing dental damage
Experts refute claims e-cigarettes harm teeth, citing inaccuracies and praising UK’s positive stance on vaping.

Two food science scholars from Cardiff Metropolitan University's School of Sport and Health Sciences have recently made claims that electronic cigarettes can lead to tooth damage. In response, four experts in the field - Dr. Richard Holliday, Professor Helen McNeill, Anthony Wake and Zehra Sayed - published a letter in the British Dental Journal at Newcastle University, explaining the inaccuracies of these claims.


The truth about electronic cigarettes has been revealed by four experts from the Dental Sciences School of Newcastle University, which is good news for everyone. Nancy Lucas, Executive Coordinator of the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA), made this statement at a recent press conference.


Four experts have written that they are "disappointed by several basic errors and misrepresentations" and have corrected five major errors in the potential harm of e-cigarettes. Lucas added that given the UK's positive attitude towards e-cigarettes, such inaccurate statements are surprising.


The UK has taken a relatively progressive and risk-balanced approach towards electronic cigarettes, with the country's public health sector firmly believing that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking. While it may be surprising that these two food science lecturers were able to express their views, luckily, they have since been proven inaccurate, according to Lucas.


Four experts have explained that the two authors used a World Health Organization poster and incorrectly claimed that nicotine can cause a "high risk of oral and systemic health complications." They added that in fact, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been safely used in the form of patches and gum for 30 years.


Electronic cigarettes can be part of a smoking cessation package.


Furthermore, they added that "it is recommended that dental professionals in the UK refer to carefully considered public health guidelines, which suggest that for the best chance of quitting smoking, both support and medication therapy should be utilized, with e-cigarettes being part of this approach.


CAPHRA emphasized that Dr. Richard Holliday, a specialist in restorative dentistry and periodontics, wrote an article in The Times stating that "smokers considering switching to e-cigarettes should remember that this is a good choice for their overall bodily and oral health".


The biggest mistake made by food science lecturers is the same mistake many people make - promoting the World Health Organization's anti-e-cigarette stance as an official public health stance. It's worth noting that all UK public institutions, including the National Health Service, ignore the WHO's advice. They support e-cigarettes because they know e-cigarettes neither erode teeth nor cause gum disease.



Disclaimer

This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.

Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.

The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.

This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright Notice

This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.

No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.

For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.

 

AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice

Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.

Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.

Australia Extends Illicit Tobacco Crackdown From Tougher Penalties to Customs and Logistics Supply Chains
Australia Extends Illicit Tobacco Crackdown From Tougher Penalties to Customs and Logistics Supply Chains
Australia's federal government introduced a new illicit tobacco enforcement bill on September 10 that would strengthen evidentiary presumptions, representative sampling, seizure and forfeiture procedures, proceeds-of-crime powers and obligations for customs and logistics operators. The proposal follows the Combatting Illicit Tobacco Act 2026, which took effect in August and increased penalties while expanding investigative and asset-recovery tools. Together, the reforms extend Australia's crackdown from tougher criminal sanctions into import, logistics and evidentiary enforcement.
Sep.14
Product | JTI Launches Ploom AURA Teal Electric Pop in South Korea, Its First Dual-Color Edition
Product | JTI Launches Ploom AURA Teal Electric Pop in South Korea, Its First Dual-Color Edition
JTI Korea launched the Ploom AURA Teal Electric Pop limited edition in South Korea on September 1, 2026, marking the first dual-color design in the Ploom AURA range. The device combines a dark green body with teal accents and is accompanied by matching Front Panel, Back Cover and Pocket Bag accessories. The standalone device is priced at KRW 29,000, with three additional device-and-accessory bundles available. The release continues JTI Korea's use of limited colorways and interchangeable accessories to expand the Ploom AURA portfolio without introducing a new hardware platform.
Sep.03
Australian Coalition Unveils Illicit Tobacco Plan With 80% Excise Cut and Legal, Taxed Vapes and Nicotine Pouches
Australian Coalition Unveils Illicit Tobacco Plan With 80% Excise Cut and Legal, Taxed Vapes and Nicotine Pouches
Australia’s Coalition has unveiled a national illicit-tobacco policy that would cut tobacco excise by 80% and create legal, regulated and taxed adult markets for vaping products and nicotine pouches if it wins government. The plan proposes an excise of A$0.50 per millilitre of e-liquid and A$0.025 per milligram of nicotine in pouches, alongside A$200 million in additional enforcement and a A$60 million three-year public-awareness campaign. The Coalition says the package would narrow the price advantage of illicit products and undermine organised crime, while Labor and public-health groups warn that dramatically cheaper cigarettes could reverse long-term declines in smoking.
Sep.03
UK-Listed Consumer Goods Group Supreme Sees Vape Duty as Potential Consolidation Opportunity, Holds FY27 Outlook
UK-Listed Consumer Goods Group Supreme Sees Vape Duty as Potential Consolidation Opportunity, Holds FY27 Outlook
UK-listed consumer goods group Supreme plc says it continues to expect FY27 trading to meet market expectations as the Vaping Products Duty takes effect on October 1, while maintaining a comparatively positive view of the new tax and compliance regime. Supreme has said the framework could increase compliance complexity for smaller operators and contribute to market consolidation, while its manufacturing, compliance and distribution scale may allow it to gain share. Its 88Vape brand will retain its value positioning.
Sep.18
U.S. Health Groups Seek to Overturn FDA Enforcement Discretion for Pending PMTAs as Altria's Helix, NJOY and AVM Move to Intervene
U.S. Health Groups Seek to Overturn FDA Enforcement Discretion for Pending PMTAs as Altria's Helix, NJOY and AVM Move to Intervene
American Vapor Manufacturers (AVM) and Altria subsidiaries Helix Innovations and NJOY filed separate motions on October 7, 2026, seeking to intervene on the FDA's side in a lawsuit challenging its enforcement guidance for certain e-cigarette and nicotine pouch products with pending premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs). Seven public health and tobacco-control organizations, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, sued the agency in July to overturn the policy. AVM argues that vacating the guidance could disrupt orders, inventory, retail distribution and investments in regulatory submissions.
Regulations
Oct.09
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
According to VitalLaw on August 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an FDA marketing denial order (MDO) against NicQuid LLC, ruling that the agency’s comparative-efficacy standard for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) applications had become a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court did not reject FDA’s authority to compare the public health benefits and risks of flavored vapes, but held that the agency could not establish a broadly binding standard through informal adjudications. The case was remanded to FDA for further proceedings.
Aug.28