4.5 Article

Human Cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr Virus Genotypes in Apical Periodontitis Lesions

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 41, Issue 11, Pages 1847-1851

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.08.027

Keywords

Apical periodontitis; EBNA-2 protein; Epstein-Barr virus; genotype; glycoprotein B; human cytomegalovirus

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia [175075, 175073]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Different genotypes of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) possess specific pathogenic abilities because of various interactions with the host's immune system and differences in cell tropism. The aim of this study was to determine the distribution of HCMV and EBV genotypes in apical periodontitis lesions in relation to their clinical and histopathologic features. Methods: One hundred samples of apical periodontitis lesions and 25 control samples (healthy pulp tissue) were collected. The presence of HCMV glycoprotein B (gB) and EBV nuclear antigen-2 genotypes was analyzed by nested polymerase chain reaction and restriction fragment length polymorphisms analysis. Results: EBV and HCMV were detected in apical periodontitis lesions at significantly higher frequencies than in healthy pulp controls (P = .020 and P = .020, respectively). HCMV gB type II was significantly more frequent compared with gB type I in the examined groups (P = .036). No HCMV gB type III or IV products were found. In both periapical lesions and controls, EBV-1 occurred more often compared with EBV-2 (P = .001). Dual EBV and HCMV coinfection was more frequently detected in large-size periapical lesions (P = .038). Conclusions: Both HCMV and EBV are associated with inflammatory processes of periapical bone destruction. HCMV gB type II and EBV-1 are the most prevalent genotypes in apical periodontitis lesions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available