4.5 Article

Detection of Helicobacter pylori, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the subgingival biofilm of HIV-infected subjects undergoing HAART with chronic periodontitis

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-009-0786-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Program of Research Support for Groups of Excellence (PRONEX)
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  3. State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), Brazil

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the frequency of Helicobacter pylori, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the subgingival microbiota of HIV-seropositive and HIV-seronegative subjects with periodontitis or clinically healthy periodontal tissues. Fifty-four subjects were distributed into two HIV-seropositive groups (chronic periodontitis [HCP = 13] and periodontal health [HH = 10]) and two HIV-seronegative groups (chronic periodontitis [CP = 17] and periodontal health [H = 14]). The detection of bacterial species was carried out by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). CP patients showed significantly more periodontal destruction, inflammation, and supragingival plaque than HCP patients (P < 0.05). All species were detected at a higher prevalence in CP and HCP than H individuals (P < 0.01). In the HIV groups, H. pylori was significantly more prevalent in periodontitis compared to healthy patients (P < 0.01). A higher frequency of E. faecalis and P. aeruginosa was observed in the subgingival biofilm of HH than H subjects (P < 0.01). Moreover, E. faecalis was detected significantly more often in HIV-seropositive compared to HIV-seronegative patients, regardless of periodontal status (P < 0.01). These data indicate that H. pylori is frequently detected in the subgingival microbiota of periodontitis subjects. In contrast, HIV-seropositive patients with either periodontitis or periodontal health present a high prevalence of E. faecalis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available