4.6 Article

Periodontal status and the incidence of selected bacterial pathogens in periodontal pockets and vascular walls in patients with atherosclerosis and abdominal aortic aneurysms

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270177

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the periodontal status of patients with atherosclerosis and abdominal aortic aneurysms. The results showed that the majority of patients had chronic severe generalized periodontitis, and multiple periodontopathogens were detected in the periodontal pockets.
The aim of the study was to examine the periodontal status of patients with atherosclerosis and abdominal aortic aneurysms. The occurrence of 5 periodontopathogens was evaluated in periodontal pockets and atheromatous plaques together with specimens from pathologically changed vascular walls of aortic aneurysms. The study comprised 39 patients who qualified for vascular surgeries. Patients with periodontitis and concomitant atherosclerosis or aneurysms were enrolled in the study. Periodontal indices were evaluated, and subgingival plaque samples were examined together with atheromatous plaques or specimens from vascular walls to identify, by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the following periodontopathogens: Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tanarella forsythia, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia and Treponema denticola. The majority of patients had chronic severe generalized periodontitis in stages III and IV. Laboratory investigations showed the occurrence of one or more of the five targeted periodontopathogens in 94.6% of the periodontal pockets examined. Of the examined periodontopathogens, only Porphyromonas gingivalis was confirmed in 1 atheromatous plaque sample collected from the wall of an aortic aneurysm. Therefore, the occurrence of this bacterium in these vessels was considered to be occasional in patients with chronic periodontitis.

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