4.5 Article

Herpesviral-bacterial co-infection in mandibular third molar pericoronitis

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 1639-1646

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1955-4

关键词

Pericoronitis; Epstein-Barr virus; Human cytomegalovirus; Tannarella forsythia; Parvimonas micra; Polymerase chain reaction

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia [175075]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to assess the presence of herpesviruses and periodontopathic bacteria and to establish their potential association with pericoronitis. Fifty samples obtained with paper points (30 from pericoronitis and 20 controls) were subjected to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. A single-stage and nested PCR assays were used to detect herpesviruses: human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and six periodontopathic anaerobic bacteria: Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Parvimonas micra, Treponema denticola, and Tannarella forsythia. Pericoronitis samples harbored HCMV and EBV at significantly higher rates than the control group (70 vs. 40 % and 46.7 vs. 15 %, P = 0.035, P = 0.021, respectively). P. micra and T. forsythia (66.7 vs. 0 %, and 40 vs. 10 %, P = 0.001, P = 0.021, respectively) were significantly more common in pericoronitis compared to the control group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the presence of T. forsythia was associated with pericoronitis development (OR 7.3, 95 % CI, 1.2-43.2, P = 0.028). The occurrence of HCVM and EBV extends our previous knowledge on microbiota in pericoronitis. These PCR-based findings demonstrated that bacterial and viral DNA occurred concomitantly in pericoronitis samples. T. forsythia appeared to be significantly associated with pericoronitis development in the examined sample. Herpesviral-bacterial co-infections might exacerbate the progression of pericoronitis.

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