4.6 Article

Crevicular fluid biomarkers and periodontal disease progression

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 113-120

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12194

Keywords

biomarkers; disease progression; gingival crevicular fluid; longitudinal; periodontitis

Funding

  1. NIH [U01-DE014961]
  2. NCRR [ULRR0000042]
  3. Swiss Society of Periodontology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimAssess the ability of a panel of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) biomarkers as predictors of periodontal disease progression (PDP). Materials and methodsIn 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 6months, no periodontal treatment was provided. At 6months, patients received periodontal therapy and continued participation from 6 to 12months. GCF samples were analysed by ELISA for MMP-8, MMP-9, Osteoprotegerin, C-reactive Protein and IL-1. 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. ResultsEighty-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). ConclusionsSignature of GCF fluid-derived biomarkers combined with pathogens and clinical measures provides a sensitive measure for discrimination of PDP (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00277745).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available