Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relationship between smoking and dental status in 35‐, 50‐, 65‐, and 75‐year‐old individuals

Axelsson, P., Paulartder, J., Lindhe, J.·1998·Journal of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract

Abstract. The aim of the present study was to examine the dental status and smoking habits in randomized samples of 35‐, 50‐, 65‐, and 75‐year‐old subjects (n= 1093), recruited for a cross‐sectional epidemiological study in the County of Värmland, Sweden. The following clinical variables were recorded by 4 well‐calibrated dentists: number of edentuolous subjects, number of missing teeth, probing attachment level, furcation involvement, CPITN scores, DMF surfaces, plaque and.stimulated salivary secretion rate (SSSR). In addition, the subjects reported in a questionnaire their tobacco habits, oral hygiene habits, dietary habits etc. The percentage of smokers in 35‐, 50‐, 65‐, and 75‐year‐olds was 35%, 35%, 24% and 12%, respectively. In 75‐year‐olds, 41% of the smokers were edentulous compared to 35% of non‐smokers. The difference in number of missing teeth between smokers and non‐smokers was 0.6 (p=0.15), 1.5 (p=0.013), 3.5 (p=0.0007) and 5.8 (p=0.005) in the 4 age groups. Smokers had the largest mean probing attachment loss in all age groups. The differences between smokers and non‐smokers in mean attachment level were 0.37 (p=0.001), 0.88 (p=0.001), 0.85 (P=0.001) and 1.33 mm (p=0.003) in the 35‐, 50‐, 65‐, and 75‐year‐olds, respectively. Treatment need assessed by CPITN was in all age groups greatest among smokers. The number of intact tooth surfaces was fewer in 35‐, 50‐, and 75‐year‐old smokers than in non‐smokers. The number of missing surfaces (MS) was higher in 50‐, 65‐, and 75‐year‐old smokers than in non‐smokers. In addition, 35‐year‐old smokers exhibited a significantly larger number of decayed and filled tooth surfaces (DFS) than non‐smokers. Male smokers had significantly higher SSSR than non‐smoking males (p=0.012). Plaque index and oral hygiene were similar in smokers and non‐smokers. Smokers reported a more frequent intake of sugar containing soft drinks (p=0.000) and snacks (p=0.003) than non‐smokers. The opposite was reported for consumption of fruit (p=0.003). It was concluded that smoking is a significant risk indicator for tooth loss, probing attachment loss and dental caries.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1998.tb02444.x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Axelsson, P., Paulartder, J., & Lindhe, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-04
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
297-305
ISSN
  • 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-051X
OpenAlex
W2019743654
Cited by
301
References
37
FWCI
14.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relationship between smoking and dental status in 35‐, 50‐, 65‐, and 75‐year‐old individuals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1998.tb02444.x
The paper
Axelsson, P., Paulartder, J., & Lindhe, J. (1998). Relationship between smoking and dental status in 35‐, 50‐, 65‐, and 75‐year‐old individuals. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1998.tb02444.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.