4.5 Article

The leprosy reaction is associated with salivary anti-Porphyromonas gingivalis IgA antibodies

期刊

AMB EXPRESS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s13568-023-01576-1

关键词

Saliva; Periodontitis; Humoral response; Leprosy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between salivary anti-Porphyromonas gingivalis IgA antibodies and the leprosy reaction. Salivary levels of anti-P. gingivalis IgA antibodies were measured in individuals diagnosed with leprosy, and a positive association with the leprosy reaction was found. Individuals with high levels of salivary anti-P. gingivalis IgA were approximately twice as likely to develop the leprosy reaction.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between salivary anti-Porphyromonas gingivalis IgA antibodies and the leprosy reaction. The levels of salivary anti - P. gingivalis IgA antibodies, together with salivary flow and pH were measured in individuals diagnosed with leprosy and associated with the development of the leprosy reaction. Saliva was collected from 202 individuals diagnosed with leprosy at a reference leprosy treatment center, 106 cases with the leprosy reaction and 96 controls without the leprosy reaction. Anti - P. gingivalis IgA was evaluated by indirect immunoenzyme assay. Non-conditional logistic regression analysis was employed to estimate the association between antibody levels and the leprosy reaction. There was a positive statistically significant association between the levels of anti - P. gingivalis IgA and the presence of the leprosy reaction, controlling for confounders: age, sex, level of education and alcoholic beverage consumption: ORajusted: 2.55; IC 95%: 1.34-4.87. Individuals with leprosy who had high levels of salivary anti - P. gingivalis IgA had approximately twice as many chances of developing the leprosy reaction. The findings suggest a possible relationship between salivary anti - P. gingivalis IgA antibodies and the leprosy reaction.

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