International endodontic journal · 2004
Cytomegalovirus infection in symptomatic periapical pathosis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Slots J, Nowzari H, Sabeti M
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the presence of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections in samples from 25 symptomatic and 19 asymptomatic periapical lesions.
METHODOLOGY: Periapical samples were collected by sterile curettes in conjunction with apicectomy. cDNA-based HCMV and EBV identification was performed on total mRNAs extracted from peripapical tissues, using primers for genes transcribed during the productive phase of the herpesvirus infection. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-squared test.
RESULTS: HCMV was detected in 100% of the symptomatic and in 37% of the asymptomatic study lesions. EBV was identified only in HCMV-infected periapical lesions. The difference in occurrence of HCMV and EBV between symptomatic and asymptomatic periapical lesions was statistically significant (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The noteworthy finding of this study was the ubiquitous occurrence of HCMV active infection in symptomatic periapical pathosis. EBV may contribute to periapical pathogenesis in a subset of symptomatic lesions. HCMV and EBV infections may cause periapical pathosis by inducing cytokine and chemokine release from inflammatory or connective tissue cells, or by impairing local host defences resulting in heightened virulence of resident bacterial pathogens. Knowledge about the role of herpesviruses in periapical pathosis seems important to fully delineate the pathogenesis of endodontic infectious diseases. HCMV and probably EBV should be added to the list of putative pathogenic agents in symptomatic periapical disease.
METHODOLOGY: Periapical samples were collected by sterile curettes in conjunction with apicectomy. cDNA-based HCMV and EBV identification was performed on total mRNAs extracted from peripapical tissues, using primers for genes transcribed during the productive phase of the herpesvirus infection. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-squared test.
RESULTS: HCMV was detected in 100% of the symptomatic and in 37% of the asymptomatic study lesions. EBV was identified only in HCMV-infected periapical lesions. The difference in occurrence of HCMV and EBV between symptomatic and asymptomatic periapical lesions was statistically significant (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The noteworthy finding of this study was the ubiquitous occurrence of HCMV active infection in symptomatic periapical pathosis. EBV may contribute to periapical pathogenesis in a subset of symptomatic lesions. HCMV and EBV infections may cause periapical pathosis by inducing cytokine and chemokine release from inflammatory or connective tissue cells, or by impairing local host defences resulting in heightened virulence of resident bacterial pathogens. Knowledge about the role of herpesviruses in periapical pathosis seems important to fully delineate the pathogenesis of endodontic infectious diseases. HCMV and probably EBV should be added to the list of putative pathogenic agents in symptomatic periapical disease.