PloS one · 2017
Microbial profile comparisons of saliva, pooled and site-specific subgingival samples in periodontitis patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Belstrøm Daniel, Sembler-Møller Maria Lynn, Grande Maria Anastasia, Kirkby Nikolai, Cotton Sean Liam, Paster Bruce J, Holmstrup Palle
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare microbial profiles of saliva, pooled and site-specific subgingival samples in patients with periodontitis. We tested the hypotheses that saliva can be an alternative to pooled subgingival samples, when screening for presence of periopathogens.
DESIGN: Site specific subgingival plaque samples (n = 54), pooled subgingival plaque samples (n = 18) and stimulated saliva samples (n = 18) were collected from 18 patients with generalized chronic periodontitis. Subgingival and salivary microbiotas were characterized by means of HOMINGS (Human Oral Microbe Identification using Next Generation Sequencing) and microbial community profiles were compared using Spearman rank correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: Pronounced intraindividual differences were recorded in site-specific microbial profiles, and site-specific information was in general not reflected by pooled subgingival samples. Presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, Prevotella intermedia, Filifactor alocis, Tannerella forsythia and Parvimona micra in site-specific subgingival samples were detected in saliva with an AUC of 0.79 (sensitivity: 0.61, specificity: 0.94), compared to an AUC of 0.76 (sensitivity: 0.56, specificity: 0.94) in pooled subgingival samples.
CONCLUSIONS: Site-specific presence of periodontal pathogens was detected with comparable accuracy in stimulated saliva samples and pooled subgingival plaque samples. Consequently, saliva may be a reasonable surrogate for pooled subgingival samples when screening for presence of periopathogens. Future large-scale studies are needed to confirm findings from this study.
DESIGN: Site specific subgingival plaque samples (n = 54), pooled subgingival plaque samples (n = 18) and stimulated saliva samples (n = 18) were collected from 18 patients with generalized chronic periodontitis. Subgingival and salivary microbiotas were characterized by means of HOMINGS (Human Oral Microbe Identification using Next Generation Sequencing) and microbial community profiles were compared using Spearman rank correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: Pronounced intraindividual differences were recorded in site-specific microbial profiles, and site-specific information was in general not reflected by pooled subgingival samples. Presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, Prevotella intermedia, Filifactor alocis, Tannerella forsythia and Parvimona micra in site-specific subgingival samples were detected in saliva with an AUC of 0.79 (sensitivity: 0.61, specificity: 0.94), compared to an AUC of 0.76 (sensitivity: 0.56, specificity: 0.94) in pooled subgingival samples.
CONCLUSIONS: Site-specific presence of periodontal pathogens was detected with comparable accuracy in stimulated saliva samples and pooled subgingival plaque samples. Consequently, saliva may be a reasonable surrogate for pooled subgingival samples when screening for presence of periopathogens. Future large-scale studies are needed to confirm findings from this study.