4.6 Article

Comparing periodontitis biomarkers in saliva, oral rinse and gingival crevicular fluid: A pilot study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 48, 期 9, 页码 1250-1259

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13479

关键词

biomarkers; chitinase; gingival crevicular fluid; MMP-8; modelling; oral rinse; periodontitis; principal component analysis (PCA); protease; saliva

资金

  1. Dutch Society of Periodontology (NVvP)
  2. ACTA Amsterdam
  3. University of Amsterdam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to explore the feasibility of screening for periodontitis by measuring biomarkers in saliva, oral rinse, and gingival crevicular fluid. Results showed that the combination of MMP-8 and chitinase in oral rinse samples can accurately discriminate between periodontitis and periodontal health/gingivitis, with MMP-8 and TPA concentrations significantly higher in periodontitis patients.
Aim To explore the feasibility of screening for periodontitis by measuring biomarkers, namely total proteolytic activity (TPA), matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8, chitinase, lysozyme or their combination, in saliva, oral rinse and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). Material and methods Subjects were recruited among healthy/gingivitis individuals and untreated periodontitis patients in Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA). All participants donated samples of unstimulated whole saliva, oral rinse and GCF. The protein concentrations and MMP-8 levels were determined by ELISA. Enzymatic activities were measured using appropriate fluorogenic substrates. Results In oral rinse samples, periodontitis patients (n = 19) exhibited significantly higher concentrations of MMP-8 and TPA than controls (n = 20). MMP-8 in combination with chitinase explained 88% of the variance and assigned a subject to control or periodontitis group, with best accuracy (87.2%) in oral rinse. Conclusions The combination of MMP-8 and chitinase in the current oral rinse procedure has the potential to discriminate periodontitis from periodontal health/gingivitis.

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