Journal of clinical periodontology · 2013
Crevicular fluid biomarkers and periodontal disease progression.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Kinney Janet S, Morelli Thiago, Oh Min, Braun Thomas M, Ramseier Christoph A, Sugai Jim V, Giannobile William V
Аннотация
AIM: Assess the ability of a panel of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) biomarkers as predictors of periodontal disease progression (PDP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 100 individuals participated in a 12-month longitudinal investigation and were categorized into four groups according to their periodontal status. GCF, clinical parameters and saliva were collected bi-monthly. Subgingival plaque and serum were collected bi-annually. For 6 months, no periodontal treatment was provided. At 6 months, patients received periodontal therapy and continued participation from 6 to 12 months. GCF samples were analysed by ELISA for MMP-8, MMP-9, Osteoprotegerin, C-reactive Protein and IL-1β. Differences in median levels of GCF biomarkers were compared between stable and progressing participants using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (p = 0.05). Clustering algorithm was used to evaluate the ability of oral biomarkers to classify patients as either stable or progressing.
RESULTS: Eighty-three individuals completed the 6-month monitoring phase. With the exception of GCF C-reactive protein, all biomarkers were significantly higher in the PDP group compared to stable patients. Clustering analysis showed highest sensitivity levels when biofilm pathogens and GCF biomarkers were combined with clinical measures, 74% (95% CI = 61, 86).
CONCLUSIONS: Signature of GCF fluid-derived biomarkers combined with pathogens and clinical measures provides a sensitive measure for discrimination of PDP (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00277745).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 100 individuals participated in a 12-month longitudinal investigation and were categorized into four groups according to their periodontal status. GCF, clinical parameters and saliva were collected bi-monthly. Subgingival plaque and serum were collected bi-annually. For 6 months, no periodontal treatment was provided. At 6 months, patients received periodontal therapy and continued participation from 6 to 12 months. GCF samples were analysed by ELISA for MMP-8, MMP-9, Osteoprotegerin, C-reactive Protein and IL-1β. Differences in median levels of GCF biomarkers were compared between stable and progressing participants using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (p = 0.05). Clustering algorithm was used to evaluate the ability of oral biomarkers to classify patients as either stable or progressing.
RESULTS: Eighty-three individuals completed the 6-month monitoring phase. With the exception of GCF C-reactive protein, all biomarkers were significantly higher in the PDP group compared to stable patients. Clustering analysis showed highest sensitivity levels when biofilm pathogens and GCF biomarkers were combined with clinical measures, 74% (95% CI = 61, 86).
CONCLUSIONS: Signature of GCF fluid-derived biomarkers combined with pathogens and clinical measures provides a sensitive measure for discrimination of PDP (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00277745).
Предметные рубрики MeSH
BiofilmsBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinChronic PeriodontitisCohort StudiesDental PlaqueDental ScalingDisease ProgressionFollow-Up StudiesForecastingGingival Crevicular FluidGingivitisHumansInterleukin-1betaLongitudinal StudiesMatrix Metalloproteinase 8Matrix Metalloproteinase 9OsteoprotegerinPeriodontitisRoot PlaningSalivaSensitivity and Specificity