Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Bedran, Telma Blanca Lombardo
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes, Spolidorio, Luís Carlos, Cirelli, Joni Augusto, Spolidorio, Denise Palomari
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v15i3.8649599
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/231408
Resumo: Aim: To perform a comparative analysis between two methods for detecting Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia and Porphyromonas endodontalis in periodontal plaque samples.Methods: The study sample consisted of twenty systemically healthy patients showing generalized chronic periodontitis. The subgingival samples for microbiological analysis were collected before (baseline) and 60 days after a basic periodontal therapy from 30 non-adjacent affected sites (Probing Depth (PD): 5-7 mm, Clinical Attachment Loss (CAL) ≥ 5 mm, positive for Bleeding on Probing (BOP)). Microbiological analysis was performed by PCR and qPCR. To allow a comparative analysis between both methods, qPCR was divided in three different scores (score 2: presence of more than 100 bacteria; score 1: presence of 10-100 bacteria, and score 0: absence of bacteria), in accordance to DNA quantity, while for PCR two scores were assigned: presence or absence of bacteria. Results: qPCR demonstrated higher sensitivity in the detection of these pathogens compared with PCR when scores 1 and 2 were considered positive. However, when only score 2 was considered positive, PCR and qPCR showed better agreement. Conclusions: qPCR demonstrated higher sensitivity than conventional PCR for detection of low numbers of microorganisms and can be useful for the quantification of periodontopathogens.
id UNSP_23b7c8a63a52c69c6fcf62cb1730bd2e
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/231408
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteriaBacteriaPeriodontal diseasesPolymerase chain reactionAim: To perform a comparative analysis between two methods for detecting Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia and Porphyromonas endodontalis in periodontal plaque samples.Methods: The study sample consisted of twenty systemically healthy patients showing generalized chronic periodontitis. The subgingival samples for microbiological analysis were collected before (baseline) and 60 days after a basic periodontal therapy from 30 non-adjacent affected sites (Probing Depth (PD): 5-7 mm, Clinical Attachment Loss (CAL) ≥ 5 mm, positive for Bleeding on Probing (BOP)). Microbiological analysis was performed by PCR and qPCR. To allow a comparative analysis between both methods, qPCR was divided in three different scores (score 2: presence of more than 100 bacteria; score 1: presence of 10-100 bacteria, and score 0: absence of bacteria), in accordance to DNA quantity, while for PCR two scores were assigned: presence or absence of bacteria. Results: qPCR demonstrated higher sensitivity in the detection of these pathogens compared with PCR when scores 1 and 2 were considered positive. However, when only score 2 was considered positive, PCR and qPCR showed better agreement. Conclusions: qPCR demonstrated higher sensitivity than conventional PCR for detection of low numbers of microorganisms and can be useful for the quantification of periodontopathogens.Department of Dentistry Nove de Julho UniversityDepartment of Oral Diagnosis and Surgery Araraquara Dental School State University of São PauloDepartment of Physiology and Pathology Araraquara Dental School State University of São PauloNove de Julho UniversityUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)Bedran, Telma Blanca Lombardode Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel LopesSpolidorio, Luís CarlosCirelli, Joni AugustoSpolidorio, Denise Palomari2022-04-29T08:45:19Z2022-04-29T08:45:19Z2016-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article166-172http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v15i3.8649599Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, v. 15, n. 3, p. 166-172, 2016.1677-32251677-3217http://hdl.handle.net/11449/23140810.20396/bjos.v15i3.86495992-s2.0-85028870262Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengBrazilian Journal of Oral Sciencesinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2022-04-29T08:45:19Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/231408Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T16:30:44.918675Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
title Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
spellingShingle Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
Bedran, Telma Blanca Lombardo
Bacteria
Periodontal diseases
Polymerase chain reaction
title_short Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
title_full Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
title_fullStr Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
title_sort Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
author Bedran, Telma Blanca Lombardo
author_facet Bedran, Telma Blanca Lombardo
de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes
Spolidorio, Luís Carlos
Cirelli, Joni Augusto
Spolidorio, Denise Palomari
author_role author
author2 de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes
Spolidorio, Luís Carlos
Cirelli, Joni Augusto
Spolidorio, Denise Palomari
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Nove de Julho University
Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Bedran, Telma Blanca Lombardo
de Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes
Spolidorio, Luís Carlos
Cirelli, Joni Augusto
Spolidorio, Denise Palomari
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Bacteria
Periodontal diseases
Polymerase chain reaction
topic Bacteria
Periodontal diseases
Polymerase chain reaction
description Aim: To perform a comparative analysis between two methods for detecting Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia and Porphyromonas endodontalis in periodontal plaque samples.Methods: The study sample consisted of twenty systemically healthy patients showing generalized chronic periodontitis. The subgingival samples for microbiological analysis were collected before (baseline) and 60 days after a basic periodontal therapy from 30 non-adjacent affected sites (Probing Depth (PD): 5-7 mm, Clinical Attachment Loss (CAL) ≥ 5 mm, positive for Bleeding on Probing (BOP)). Microbiological analysis was performed by PCR and qPCR. To allow a comparative analysis between both methods, qPCR was divided in three different scores (score 2: presence of more than 100 bacteria; score 1: presence of 10-100 bacteria, and score 0: absence of bacteria), in accordance to DNA quantity, while for PCR two scores were assigned: presence or absence of bacteria. Results: qPCR demonstrated higher sensitivity in the detection of these pathogens compared with PCR when scores 1 and 2 were considered positive. However, when only score 2 was considered positive, PCR and qPCR showed better agreement. Conclusions: qPCR demonstrated higher sensitivity than conventional PCR for detection of low numbers of microorganisms and can be useful for the quantification of periodontopathogens.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-01-01
2022-04-29T08:45:19Z
2022-04-29T08:45:19Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v15i3.8649599
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, v. 15, n. 3, p. 166-172, 2016.
1677-3225
1677-3217
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/231408
10.20396/bjos.v15i3.8649599
2-s2.0-85028870262
url http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v15i3.8649599
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/231408
identifier_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, v. 15, n. 3, p. 166-172, 2016.
1677-3225
1677-3217
10.20396/bjos.v15i3.8649599
2-s2.0-85028870262
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 166-172
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808128663895408640