4.2 Article

Screening of elevated glucose levels in gingival crevice blood using a novel, sensitive self-monitoring device

Journal

MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages 361-365

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000080474

Keywords

periodontal disease; diabetes mellitus; gingival crevice blood; blood glucose; in-office testing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To test the feasibility of using gingival crevice blood (GCB) collected during routine periodontal examination to estimate blood glucose levels using a novel and very sensitive self-monitoring device (FreeStyle(R)). Subjects and Methods: Forty-six patients ( 20 male, 26 female; age range 12-56 years, mean age 36 +/- 11 years) seeking dental treatment took part in the study. Three and 4 patients reported diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2, respectively; 24 had gingivitis, of which 22 were moderate or advanced periodontitis. Periodontal probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment loss was measured at 6 sites of every tooth present, and bleeding on probing (BOP) was recorded. A site with profuse BOP was chosen for glucose determination. Measurements in GCB were compared with those of conventional capillary finger-stick blood (CFB). Results: Sufficiently large GCB volumes provided glucometer readings in 32 cases ( range 1.17-10.00 mmol/l). The CFB readings ranged between 1.39 and 11.50 mmol/l. If low amounts of crevice blood prohibited a glucometer reading, significantly lower mean numbers of sites with BOP (26 vs. 67, p < 0.001) and elevated PD >= 4 mm (2 vs. 21, p < 0.05) were seen. Agreement between the two measurements was low, the mean difference was -1.22, and limits of agreement (1.96 times the standard deviation of differences) were +/- 2.89 mmol/l. Conclusion: The present study failed to provide any evidence for the usefulness of GCB for testing blood glucose during routine periodontal examination. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available