4.5 Article

Increased Levels of Serum and Gingival Crevicular Fluid Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 in Smokers With Periodontitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 84, 期 9, 页码 E23-E28

出版社

AMER ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2013.120666

关键词

Chemokine CCL2; gingival crevicular fluid; periodontal attachment loss; periodontitis; serum; smoking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Smoking alters the host response, including vascular function, neutrophil/monocyte activities, adhesion molecule expression, antibody production, and cytokine and inflammatory mediator release. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) is involved in the activation and recruitment of inflammatory and immune cells to infected sites, thereby mediating a variety of pathophysiologic conditions. Estimation of serum and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) MCP levels could be a reliable indicator of periodontal disease activity. Hence, the objective of this study is to analyze the serum and GCF MCP-1 levels of smokers and never-smokers with periodontitis and compare them with those in periodontally healthy individuals. Methods: A total of 90 participants (30 periodontally healthy individuals, 30 non-smoking individuals with periodontitis, and 30 smokers with periodontitis) formed the study group. Serum and GCF samples were collected, and MCP-1 levels were estimated using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results: Mean MCP-1 levels in serum and GCF were found to be highest in smokers with periodontitis, followed by the periodontitis group, and then by the healthy controls. The values were statistically significant (P <0.001). Conclusions: It can be concluded that the high levels of both serum and GCF MCP-1 found in smokers could explain the severity of periodontitis in smokers. More longitudinal, prospective studies will help to verify the observations of the present study. Further research in this direction could reveal reliable markers to forecast the progression of periodontitis in high-risk groups.

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

4.5
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