Based on these data reported by KMFDS, heat-not-burn cigarettes do not seem as safe as the companies claim them to be, yet this argument has not been acknowledged by the manufacturers. Instead, they have been rebutting it by stating that the amount of tar in the cigarettes alone can not be used to determine which types of cigarettes are less harmful to consumers. British American Tobacco, one of the heat-not-burn product manufacturers, commented that there is no way to define every substance in the vaper or smoke, which explains why World Health Organization designated specific ones to be the most harmful as a guide to judge the health effect of certain cigarettes. Another manufacturer, Philip Morris International, added that their own recent study showing heat-not-burn cigarettes may reduce the possibility of lung cancer was presented at a news conference on Aug 30th in Seoul, Korea.

Unfortunately, this discrepancy in results from testing the safety of heat-not-burn cigarettes has caused a major confusion in many consumers, making some of them go back to combustible cigarettes. At this point, we know the report from Food and Drug Administration of United States of America that potentially toxic substances are in significantly lower levels in electronic cigarettes compared to those in conventional cigarettes. There is conclusive evidence supporting that completely switching to electronic cigarette reduces users' exposure to many chemicals and carcinogens that are in conventional cigarettes.

Taking all things into consideration, further investigations are highly required to conclude whether heat-not-burn cigarettes will be a safe alternative to combustible ones. We will stage a hearty welcome for credible studies on electronic cigarettes from periodontal viewpoint which ensures life and health of mankind.