Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of mobile phone use on the oral epithelium: a systematic review with meta- analysis

General dentistry · 2020 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 1837

Across 6 included observational studies (level 5 evidence), the meta-analysis of 2 studies comparing the RF-exposed side vs unexposed side found no association between mobile phone use and genotoxic effects (micronuclei frequency). Some included studies repor…

Study snapshot

PublicationGeneral dentistry · 2020
Study typemeta_analysis
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of mobile phone use on the oral epithelium: a systematic review with meta- analysis Marcos Antônio Lima Dos Santos, Francielle Santos de Santana, Andréa Ferreira Soares, Sílvia Ferreira de Sousa, Liciane S Menezes, Wilton Mitsunari Takeshita. Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of mobile phone use on the oral epithelium: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Gen Dent. Nov-Dec 2020;68(6):70-74. PMID: 33136050. Abstract The use of mobile phones is based on radiofrequency (RF) waves, and the devices act as transmitters and receivers of non-ionizing energy. The micronucleus test was developed to identify increases in the occurrence of mutations in cells exposed to various agents. This systematic review with meta-analysis adhered to the following protocol: defining the objective, outlining the search method (PICO model), conducting the search, identifying literature, selecting articles, and extracting data. The study aimed to answer the following research question: Does non-ionizing radiation emitted by mobile phones have genotoxic and/or cytotoxic effects on the oral epithelium? The search for evidence published 2009-2019 was conducted in the MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Google Scholar, PROSPERO, and Cochrane Library databases. The following inclusion criteria were defined: investigations of effects on the oral mucosa related to RF; investigations of cytotoxic and/or genotoxic effects; investigations involving humans; and investigations using cells exfoliated from the oral epithelium. Investigations related to the parotid gland were excluded. The search strategy found 464 articles; after application of the eligibility criteria, 358 abstracts were analyzed and 351 abstracts excluded. After 7 full texts were reviewed, 1 study was excluded. The 6 included studies were classified as level 5 quality of evidence (observational studies). The meta-analysis included 2 studies that compared the frequency of micronuclei on the side exposed to RF electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) to that on the unexposed side. The studies evaluated presented a low degree of evidence, but the meta- analysis indicated that no genotoxic effects are associated with mobile phone use. However, observations of other nuclear abnormalities in some studies suggest the occurrence of cytotoxic effects caused by exposure to the RF-EMFs emitted by mobile phones. More studies are necessary to prove or refute this association. pubmed.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 typemeta_analysis
Effect directionmixed
PopulationHumans; cells exfoliated from the oral epithelium (oral mucosa)
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureRF
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Across 6 included observational studies (level 5 evidence), the meta-analysis of 2 studies comparing the RF-exposed side vs unexposed side found no association between mobile phone use and genotoxic effects (micronuclei frequency). Some included studies reported other nuclear abnormalities, suggesting possible cytotoxic effects from RF-EMFs emitted by mobile phones.

Outcomes measured

  • Micronucleus frequency (micronucleus test)
  • Other nuclear abnormalities (cytotoxicity indicators)

Limitations

  • Included studies classified as low/level 5 quality of evidence (observational)
  • Meta-analysis included only 2 studies
  • Search limited to evidence published 2009–2019
  • Parotid gland-related investigations excluded
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "meta_analysis",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Humans; cells exfoliated from the oral epithelium (oral mucosa)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Micronucleus frequency (micronucleus test)",
    "Other nuclear abnormalities (cytotoxicity indicators)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across 6 included observational studies (level 5 evidence), the meta-analysis of 2 studies comparing the RF-exposed side vs unexposed side found no association between mobile phone use and genotoxic effects (micronuclei frequency). Some included studies reported other nuclear abnormalities, suggesting possible cytotoxic effects from RF-EMFs emitted by mobile phones.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Included studies classified as low/level 5 quality of evidence (observational)",
    "Meta-analysis included only 2 studies",
    "Search limited to evidence published 2009–2019",
    "Parotid gland-related investigations excluded"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone",
    "radiofrequency",
    "RF-EMF",
    "non-ionizing radiation",
    "oral epithelium",
    "oral mucosa",
    "micronucleus test",
    "genotoxicity",
    "cytotoxicity",
    "systematic review",
    "meta-analysis"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Systematic review/meta-analysis of RF-EMF health effects relevant to exposure guideline discussions."
    }
  ]
}
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: Not supplied
PubMed: 33136050

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library