3.8 Article

Comparison of nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real-time PCR and viral culture for the detection of cytomegalovirus in subgingival samples

期刊

ORAL MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 239-244

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2007.00418.x

关键词

human cytomegalovirus; nested polymerase chain reaction; periodontitis; real-time polymerase chain reaction; shell vial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real-time PCR, and shell vial for the detection of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) in subgingival samples in periodontitis patients. Methods: A group of 44 patients and 24 individuals without periodontitis were included in the study. A full periodontal examination was conducted in each subject. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) was collected by pocket lavage and used for viral culture (shell vial). Additional subgingival samples were obtained with paper points and used for molecular analysis. Nested PCR and real-time PCR were used to detect and quantify HCMV. Student's t-test and chi-squared test were used to compare groups. The sensitivity and specificity for the tests were calculated on 2 x 2 tables considering the nested PCR as the gold standard. Results: The detection of HCMV was greater using nested PCR than with either real-time PCR or shell vial (P < 0.0001). However, the frequency detection of both molecular techniques was higher than in viral culture (P < 0.0001). Only one case of chronic periodontitis was positive by viral culture. Agreement between nested PCR and real-time PCR was observed 47.7% and 4.1% of the time in the periodontitis and control groups, respectively. The sensitivity of real-time PCR was 60%, compared with 2.8% for the shell vial technique. Conclusions: In conclusion, this study confirmed that active HCMV infection occurs in human periodontitis; however, its frequency seems to be low. In contrast, latent periodontal HCMV infection seems to be a more frequent event.

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

3.8
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