Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
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/openAccess2024-09-27T14:04:57Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/231408Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462024-09-27T14:04:57Repositório 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 |
repositoriounesp@unesp.br |
_version_ |
1813546418328043520 |