Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Periodontal Disease at the Biofilm–Gingival Interface

Offenbacher, S., Barros, S.P., Singer, R.E., Moss, K., Williams, R.C., Beck, J.D.·2007·Journal of Periodontology

Abstract

Background: A molecular epidemiologic study provided the opportunity to characterize the biology of the biofilm–gingival interface (BGI) in 6,768 community‐dwelling subjects. Methods: Disease classifications and multivariable models were developed using clinical, microbial, inflammatory, and host‐response data. The purpose was to identify new clinical categories that represented distinct biologic phenotypes based upon DNA checkerboard analyses of eight plaque bacteria, serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) titers to 17 bacteria, and the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) levels of 16 inflammatory mediators. Five BGI clinical conditions were defined using probing depths (PDs) and bleeding on probing (BOP) scores. Subjects with all PDs ≤3 mm were grouped as BGI‐healthy (14.3% of sample) or BGI‐gingivitis (BGI‐G, 15.1%). Subjects with one or more PDs ≥4 mm [deep lesion (DL)] were divided into low BOP (18.0%), moderate BOP (BGI‐DL/MB, 39.7%), and severe BOP (BGI‐DL/SB, 12.9%). Results: Subjects with BGI‐G had increased levels of Campylobacter rectus–specific serum IgG levels (P = 0.01), and those with BGI‐DL/SB had increased IgG levels to Porphyromonas gingivalis (P < 0.0003) and C. rectus (P < 0.01). BGI‐DL/SB subjects had an excessive GCF interleukin (IL)‐1β and prostaglandin E 2 response and an enhanced chronic inflammatory response with significant increases in GCF IL‐6 and monocyte chemotactic peptide‐1. Within BGI‐DL/SB subjects, more severe pocketing and BOP were associated with higher levels of GCF IL‐1β, not higher microbial counts or plaque scores. Conclusions: New BGI classifications create categories with distinct biologic phenotypes. The increased titers of C. rectus IgG among 68.5% of the BGI‐G subjects and elevated P. gingivalis titers among BGI‐DL/MB and BGI‐DL/SB subjects (63.8% and 75.7%, respectively) are strongly supportive of the microbial specificity of pathogenesis for BGI categories.

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 · 10.1902/jop.2007.060465

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Cited by

See all 266

Metadata

Authors
Offenbacher, S., Barros, S. P., Singer, R. E., Moss, K., Williams, R. C., & Beck, J. D.
Venue
Journal of Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10
Volume
78
Issue
10
Pages
1911-1925
ISSN
  • 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3670
OpenAlex
W2164926125
Cited by
266
References
28
FWCI
16.55
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: Periodontal Disease at the Biofilm–Gingival Interface. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1902/jop.2007.060465
The paper
Offenbacher, S., Barros, S. P., Singer, R. E., Moss, K., Williams, R. C., & Beck, J. D. (2007). Periodontal Disease at the Biofilm–Gingival Interface. Journal of Periodontology. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060465

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.