4.4 Article

Genotyping of Streeptococcus mutans by using arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction in children, with Down Syndrome

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORAL BIOLOGY
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 177-182

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2005.07.008

关键词

Down Syndrome; dental caries; Streptococcus mutans; AP-PCR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the caries prevalence between Down Syndrome (DS) and non-DS children and to investigate the difference between the genotypes of Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) colonized in both DS and non-DS groups. Design: Sixty children with DS and 64 non-DS children aged between 7 and 12 years old were included to this study. AR erupted teeth were evaluated according to the criteria recommended by the World Health Organization. Unstimutated saliva samples were carried out from the children and cultivated on S. mutans selective Tryptone-yeast cystine (TYC) agar with 0.2 U/ml bacitracin and 15% sucrose. Molecular typing of S. mutans strains was performed by using arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction (AP-PCR) with OPA-05 primer. All data were analysed by using SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) 11.0 software program for windows. Results: The caries index scores were found significantly lower in DS individuals than the non-DS group (p < 0.05). The salivary S. mutans levels between DS and non-DS groups did not show significant difference (p > 0.05). The difference between dental caries and salivary S. mutans levels also was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). According to the results of the AP-PCR typing, all profiles of S. mutans which colonized in DS group were different from the control group. The relationship between these different profiles and dental caries prevalence was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The profiles of S. mutans colonized in DS group might be a reason of low caries prevalence. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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