This was overall a very comprehensive and detailed study comparing periodontal parameters and self-perceived oral symptoms among cigarette smokers, e-cigarette smokers and never-smokers. Since this topic was not done before as mentioned by the authors, referencing information would have been limited. However this study used a good amount of references from peer-reviewed journal which indicates excellent information gathering.

Title and abstract: The title of this article is long but this is unavoidable given the complicated nature of this study. The background, methods, results and final conclusion were clearly explained in the abstract.

References: As mentioned earlier, there were many high-quality references used for a topic that has not been widely studied. This shows that the authors put in a good effort in information gathering which in turn makes this study more reliable.

Introduction: The introduction provides readers with an extensive amount of information about e-cigarettes. This is critical because e-cigarettes can still be a little less understood by the general public compared to traditional cigarettes, which have existed for a far longer period of time. Hence, thoroughly explaining the mechanism and trends of e-cigarettes was a good approach for an introduction.

Methods: The methods used by the authors were straightforward and easy to understand for dental professionals and students as standard methods like bleeding on probing and full mouth plaque index were done by the authors. This might pose a challenge for non-dental individuals to understand this study given the amount of dental knowledge required to understand the study and its parameters. However, it is unavoidable given the specificity of this subject. The authors tackled this problem well by providing a good conclusion without being too scientific.

Results: The results were presented concisely by the authors and were easy to understand. It was straightforward and showed that where there were significant differences, cigarette smokers had the worst periodontal parameters. The results were also separated neatly into different paragraphs and titles which was good as well.

Discussion: The authors explicitly mentioned that in this study, e-cigarette users were exclusively non-tobacco users and have only been using e-cigarettes for at least one year. This made the results more reliable because many e-cigarette users tend to also smoke tobacco at the same time. The authors were also generous in providing the various limitations of their study which showed that the study was not biased. For example, this study only included males which is not an accurate representation of the general population.

Conclusion: The conclusion only had one sentence which might have been a little too brief. A little bit more effort placed into the concluding paragraph could make the article end on a much smoother note.