4.6 Article

Periodontitis in coronary heart disease patients: strong association between bleeding on probing and systemic biomarkers

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 41, 期 11, 页码 1048-1054

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12284

关键词

coronary heart disease; C-reactive protein; fibrinogen; periodontitis; white blood cells

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission, Government of Pakistan [20-685, R D 06/1959]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimFew studies have examined the relationship of individual periodontal parameters with individual systemic biomarkers. This study assessed the possible association between specific clinical parameters of periodontitis and systemic biomarkers of coronary heart disease risk in coronary heart disease patients with periodontitis. Materials and MethodsAngiographically proven coronary heart disease patients with periodontitis (n=317), aged >30years and without other systemic illness were examined. Periodontal clinical parameters of bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) and systemic levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen (FIB) and white blood cells (WBC) were noted and analyzed to identify associations through linear and stepwise multiple regression analyses. ResultsUnadjusted linear regression showed significant associations between periodontal and systemic parameters; the strongest association (r=0.629; p<0.001) was found between BOP and CRP levels, the periodontal and systemic inflammation marker, respectively. Stepwise regression analysis models revealed that BOP was a predictor of systemic CRP levels (p<0.0001). BOP was the only periodontal parameter significantly associated with each systemic parameter (CRP, FIB, and WBC). ConclusionIn coronary heart disease patients with periodontitis, BOP is strongly associated with systemic CRP levels; this association possibly reflects the potential significance of the local periodontal inflammatory burden for systemic inflammation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据