4.5 Article

Correlation Between Gingival Crevicular Fluid Hemoglobin Content and Periodontal Clinical Parameters

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 87, 期 11, 页码 1314-1319

出版社

AMER ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2016.160092

关键词

Diagnosis; gingival crevicular fluid; periodontitis

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science Research Funds, Tokyo, Japan [25463267, 26463146]
  2. Japan Dental Association
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25463267, 26463146] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) are essential clinical parameters used for periodontal diagnosis. This study investigated whether detection of hemoglobin (Hb) in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), along with PD and BOP, would improve diagnostic accuracy. Methods: After plaque index (PI) was measured, GCF was collected from the gingival sulci of 401 anterior teeth in the maxilla and mandible from 184 patients who had entered periodontal maintenance therapy. Clinical parameters (gingival index [GI], PD, clinical attachment level [CAL], and BOP) were recorded. Hb values in GCF were assessed by immuno-chromatography. Moreover, cutoff values for PI, GI, and CAL based on the degree of PD and amount of GCF were created and analyzed. Results: Hb was detected in 64.8% of GCF samples in 105 BOP-negative (-) sites in the periodontally stable group out of 107 sites that were less than all cutoff values. There were 71 BOP(-) sites in the periodontal-management-required group out of 122 sites that were more than all cutoff values, although no improvement in periodontal disease was observed. Hb was detected in 88.7% of GCF samples from these 71 BOP(-) sites. Conclusions: Hb was observed in more than 60% of GCF samples in BOP(-) gingival sulci in both periodontally stable and periodontal-management-required groups. These results suggest inspection of Hb derived from microbleeding in gingival sulci may serve as an index for preclinical diagnosis.

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