4.5 Article

Identification of Synergistetes in endodontic infections

期刊

MICROBIAL PATHOGENESIS
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 1-6

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2014.05.001

关键词

Synergistetes; Apical periodontitis; Pulpitis; Apical; Endodontic; Oral bacteria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bacterial phylum Synergistetes consists of Gram-negative anaerobes. Oral Synergistetes are divided in two main clusters, namely A and B. Increasing evidence demonstrates their involvement in etiology of oral infections, including apical periodontitis. This condition causes bone loss around the apex of the tooth, subsequent to pulp inflammation (pulpitis). Although the presence of Synergistetes has been confirmed in endodontic infections by molecular methods, these have not been morphologically identified in the affected apical region, and their prevalence among different endodontic infections has not been determined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence, levels and morphology of oral Synergistetes clusters A and B, in apical root canal samples obtained of teeth with irreversible pulpitis, pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis, or previously root-filled teeth with apical periodontitis. For their detection, fluorescence in situ hybridization and epifluorescence microscopy were used. Synergistetes cluster A was not detected in pulpitis, but was found in both apical periodontitis groups, more frequently and at higher ranges in teeth which were previously root-filled. Microscopically, they appeared as straight or slightly curved long rods. Synergistetes cluster B was not detected in any of the cases. Fusobacteria and Actinomyces, which are well-established taxa in endodontic infections, were detected more frequently and at higher ranges than Synergistetes. In conclusion, Synergistetes cluster A constitutes part of the mixed apical microbiota in apical periodontitis, and may be involved in its pathogenesis. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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