4.1 Article

Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans proportion of subgingival bacterial flora in relation to its clonal type

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES
Volume 110, Issue 3, Pages 212-217

Publisher

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2002.201238.x

Keywords

Actinobacillus actinomycetermcomitans; serotype; genotype; periodontitis; ecosystem

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated whether certain Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans clones occur in elevated proportions in subgingival flora, and if the proportions relate to other bacteria in the samples. A total of 121 A. actinomycetemcomitans strains from 121 patients with periodontitis were serotyped ana 60 strains were also genotyped. The 121 strains were divided into three groups and the 60 strains into two groups according proportion of A. actinomycetemcomitans. The samples from the 60 patients with genotyped strains were cultured for five other species, Among the 121 strains, serotype b occurred significantly more frequently in the high- (n = 14, proportions >5%, mean = 18.09, SD = 20.07%) than low- (n = 49, proportions less than or equal to 0.1%, mean = 0.04, SD = 0.03%) or intermediate-proportion groups (n = 58, proportions >0.5%, mean = 1.31, SD = 1.24%). Genotype 3 occurred significantly more frequently in samples with low A. actinomycetemcomitans proportions (n = 28, less than or equal to0.1%, mean = 0.04, SD = 0.03%) than in those with high proportions (n = 32, >0.1%, mean = 5.70, SD = 14.60%). No differences were seen in the detection frequencies or proportions of the five bacterial species between the samples with low or high A. actinomycetemcomitans proportions. The results indicate that certain clonotypes of A. actinomycetemcomitans may preferentially occur as low proportions, suggesting their controlled growth. Conversely, some serotype b clones may have a competitive advantage in subgingival flora.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available