4.6 Article

Detection of gingival crevicular fluid MMP-8 levels with different laboratory and chair-side methods

Journal

ORAL DISEASES
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 39-45

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2009.01603.x

Keywords

chair-side test; GCF MMP-8; periodontitis; biomarker

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland
  2. Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Foundation
  3. Finnish Dental Society Apollonia
  4. University of Chile [DI 06/05-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare four methods for gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8 detection. Methods: Matrix metalloproteinase-8 levels from 20 GCF samples from two periodontally healthy subjects, 18 samples from two patients with gingivitis and 45 samples from six patients with moderate to severe periodontitis, altogether 83 samples, were analysed using (1) a time-resolved immunofluorometric assay (IFMA), (2) an MMP-8 specific chair-side dip-stick test, (3) a dentoAnalyzer device and (4) the Amersham ELISA kit. Western immunoblot using same monoclonal anti-MMP-8 as in IFMA and dentoAnalyzer was used to identify molecular forms of MMP-8 in GCFs. Results: Correlation between IFMA and dentoAnalyzer results calculated with Spearman's correlation coefficient was 0.95 (P = 0.01). The chair-side dip-stick test results were well in line with these assays. Periodontitis sites with unstable characteristics were differentiated with these methods. The Amersham ELISA results were not in line with the findings by other methods. Conclusions: Immunofluorometric assay and dentoAnalyzer can detect MMP-8 from GCF samples and these methods are comparable. Using Western immunoblot, it was confirmed that IFMA and dentoAnalyzer can detect activated 55 kDa MMP-8 species especially in periodontitis-affected GCF. dentoAnalyzer is among the first quantitative MMP-8 chair-side testing devices in periodontal and peri-implant diagnostics and research.

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