Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria
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....
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
2017-08-01
|
| Series: | Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8649599 |
| _version_ | 1831538425353732096 |
|---|---|
| author | Telma Blanca Lombardo Bedran Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira Luis Carlos Spolidorio Joni Augusto Cirelli Denise Palomari Spolidorio |
| author_facet | Telma Blanca Lombardo Bedran Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira Luis Carlos Spolidorio Joni Augusto Cirelli Denise Palomari Spolidorio |
| author_sort | Telma Blanca Lombardo Bedran |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T23:23:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0591dc9b7b1d4e22a1a2e948b60986cb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1677-3225 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T23:23:32Z |
| publishDate | 2017-08-01 |
| publisher | Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-0591dc9b7b1d4e22a1a2e948b60986cb2022-12-21T22:12:05ZengUniversidade Estadual de CampinasBrazilian Journal of Oral Sciences1677-32252017-08-0115310.20396/bjos.v15i3.8649599Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteriaTelma Blanca Lombardo Bedran0Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira1Luis Carlos Spolidorio2Joni Augusto Cirelli3Denise Palomari Spolidorio4Universidade Nove de JulhoUniversidade Estadual PaulistaUniversidade Estadual PaulistaUniversidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita FilhoUniversidade Estadual PaulistaAim: 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.https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8649599Periodontal diseases. Polymerase chain reaction. Bacteria. |
| spellingShingle | Telma Blanca Lombardo Bedran Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de Oliveira Luis Carlos Spolidorio Joni Augusto Cirelli Denise Palomari Spolidorio Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences Periodontal diseases. Polymerase chain reaction. Bacteria. |
| title | 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_short | Comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria |
| title_sort | comparison of two different methods for detecting periodontal pathogenic bacteria |
| topic | Periodontal diseases. Polymerase chain reaction. Bacteria. |
| url | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/bjos/article/view/8649599 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT telmablancalombardobedran comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfordetectingperiodontalpathogenicbacteria AT guilhermejosepimentellopesdeoliveira comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfordetectingperiodontalpathogenicbacteria AT luiscarlosspolidorio comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfordetectingperiodontalpathogenicbacteria AT joniaugustocirelli comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfordetectingperiodontalpathogenicbacteria AT denisepalomarispolidorio comparisonoftwodifferentmethodsfordetectingperiodontalpathogenicbacteria |