4.1 Article

Quantification of key periodontal pathogens in insulin-dependent type 2 diabetic and non-diabetic patients with generalized chronic periodontitis

期刊

ANAEROBE
卷 22, 期 -, 页码 64-68

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.06.010

关键词

Periodontitis; Periodontopathic bacteria; Real time-PCR; Type 2 diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. National Research Council of Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Periodontitis is a common problem in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), however, differences in the putative periodontal pathogens in subjects with DM compared to non-DM subjects are still inconclusive. The red complex, which includes Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia, encompasses the most important pathogens in adult periodontal disease. The aim of the present study was to compare cell numbers of P. gingivalis, T. denticola, T forsythia and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans in gingival sulcus of healthy, gingivitis and periodontitis sites of non-diabetes mellitus (NDM), controlled and poorly controlled insulin-dependent DM (CDM and PDM) patients with generalized chronic periodontitis. Subgingival plaque samples were collected from 19 CDM, 19 PDM and 19 NDM patients. Taqman real time-PCR was used to determine bacterial cell number. At subject level, the quantity of red complex bacteria was significantly higher in PDM than those of NDM and positively correlated with HbA1c. At site level (total 342 sites), cell numbers of T denticola and T. forsythia in healthy sites of CDM and PDM were significantly higher than those of NDM. In gingivitis sites, the numbers of P. gingivalis in CDM and PDM and T forsythia in PDM were significantly higher than those of NDM while in periodontitis sites, higher quantity of P. gingivalis in PDM was observed. Our study indicated that poor glycemic control is associated with increasing cell numbers of red complex bacteria in subgingival biofilm. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据