Evaluation of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay

2023 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 492

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2023

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Evaluation of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay Kadeh H, Saravani S, Moradi M, Alimanesh N. A Comparative Evaluation of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay. J Dent (Shiraz). 2023 Mar;24(1 Suppl):118-124. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2022.92515.1656. Abstract Statement of the problem: Mobile usage has increased worldwide over the past two decades. There are conflicting reports about the carcinogenic effects of cell phone radiation on the oral mucosa. Micronucleus (MN) is considered a reliable marker for genotoxic damage. Purpose: This study aimed to identify the impact of mobile phone radiation on the MN frequency in oral mucosal cells. Materials and method: In this descriptive-analytical study, 50 mobile phone users between the age group of 20- 38 years were included. Samples were obtained from the right and left cheek mucosa of each subject (a total 100 cell samples). Every participant filled out a questionnaire about his or her cell phone usage habits. Additionally, personal information such as age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) were assessed. The Feulgen and Papanicolaou staining methods were used for staining of the cell samples. A total of 1000 cells in each sample were evaluated for MNs. Results: The mean number of MN in exposed and non-exposed mucosa by Feulgen method was 0.71±1.13 and 0.57±1.36, respectively. Also in Papanicolaou staining, the mean number of MN in the exposed mucosa and non- exposed mucosa was 6.94±6.61 and 6.54±6.88, respectively, but these differences were not significant (p> 0.05). The frequency of MN in non-specific DNA staining was significantly (5- to 6-fold) higher than DNA-specific staining. We observed no statically significant differences between MN frequency according to age, gender, BMI, and other cell phone usage habits (p> 0.05). Conclusion: This study showed that cell phone use does not cause genotoxic effects in the buccal mucosa in the oral cavity. Moreover, using non-specific DNA staining methods can increase the frequency of MN by more than 5- to 6-fold. Open access paper: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationMobile phone users aged 20–38 years

Sample size50

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In 50 mobile phone users, mean MN counts did not differ significantly between exposed and non-exposed buccal mucosa using either Feulgen staining (0.71±1.13 vs 0.57±1.36) or Papanicolaou staining (6.94±6.61 vs 6.54±6.88; p>0.05). MN frequency was reported to be significantly higher (5–6 fold) with non-specific DNA staining compared with DNA-specific staining, and MN frequency was not significantly associated with age, gender, BMI, or other phone usage habits (p>0.05).

Outcomes measured

Buccal micronucleus (MN) frequency in oral mucosal cells (right vs left cheek; exposed vs non-exposed mucosa)
Comparison of MN frequency by staining method (Feulgen DNA-specific vs Papanicolaou; note: abstract also mentions non-specific vs DNA-specific staining)
Associations of MN frequency with age, gender, BMI, and cell phone usage habits

Limitations

Descriptive-analytical/cross-sectional design (causality not established)
Small sample size (n=50)
Exposure characterization limited to questionnaire-based usage habits; no objective RF exposure metrics (e.g., frequency, SAR, call time) reported in abstract
Outcome sensitive to laboratory method; large differences by staining approach noted

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Mobile phone users aged 20–38 years",
  "sample_size": 50,
  "outcomes": [
    "Buccal micronucleus (MN) frequency in oral mucosal cells (right vs left cheek; exposed vs non-exposed mucosa)",
    "Comparison of MN frequency by staining method (Feulgen DNA-specific vs Papanicolaou; note: abstract also mentions non-specific vs DNA-specific staining)",
    "Associations of MN frequency with age, gender, BMI, and cell phone usage habits"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 50 mobile phone users, mean MN counts did not differ significantly between exposed and non-exposed buccal mucosa using either Feulgen staining (0.71±1.13 vs 0.57±1.36) or Papanicolaou staining (6.94±6.61 vs 6.54±6.88; p>0.05). MN frequency was reported to be significantly higher (5–6 fold) with non-specific DNA staining compared with DNA-specific staining, and MN frequency was not significantly associated with age, gender, BMI, or other phone usage habits (p>0.05).",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Descriptive-analytical/cross-sectional design (causality not established)",
    "Small sample size (n=50)",
    "Exposure characterization limited to questionnaire-based usage habits; no objective RF exposure metrics (e.g., frequency, SAR, call time) reported in abstract",
    "Outcome sensitive to laboratory method; large differences by staining approach noted"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone radiation",
    "radiofrequency",
    "buccal mucosa",
    "micronucleus assay",
    "genotoxicity",
    "Feulgen staining",
    "Papanicolaou staining"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study evaluates genotoxic effects associated with mobile phone radiation in users using buccal micronucleus assay."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.30476/dentjods.2022.92515.1656
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library