Botero J E, Vidal C, Contreras A, Parra B
Periodontal Medicine Group, School of Dentistry, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia.
Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2008 Jun;23(3):239-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2007.00418.x.
The purpose of this study was to compare nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real-time PCR, and shell vial for the detection of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) in subgingival samples in periodontitis patients.
A group of 44 patients and 24 individuals without periodontitis were included in the study. A full periodontal examination was conducted in each subject. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) was collected by pocket lavage and used for viral culture (shell vial). Additional subgingival samples were obtained with paper points and used for molecular analysis. Nested PCR and real-time PCR were used to detect and quantify HCMV. Student's t-test and chi-squared test were used to compare groups. The sensitivity and specificity for the tests were calculated on 2 x 2 tables considering the nested PCR as the gold standard.
The detection of HCMV was greater using nested PCR than with either real-time PCR or shell vial (P < 0.0001). However, the frequency detection of both molecular techniques was higher than in viral culture (P < 0.0001). Only one case of chronic periodontitis was positive by viral culture. Agreement between nested PCR and real-time PCR was observed 47.7% and 4.1% of the time in the periodontitis and control groups, respectively. The sensitivity of real-time PCR was 60%, compared with 2.8% for the shell vial technique.
In conclusion, this study confirmed that active HCMV infection occurs in human periodontitis; however, its frequency seems to be low. In contrast, latent periodontal HCMV infection seems to be a more frequent event.
本研究的目的是比较巢式聚合酶链反应(PCR)、实时荧光定量PCR及病毒分离培养法对牙周炎患者龈下样本中人巨细胞病毒(HCMV)的检测效果。
本研究纳入了44例牙周炎患者和24例非牙周炎个体。对每位受试者进行全面的牙周检查。通过牙周袋冲洗收集龈沟液(GCF)用于病毒培养(病毒分离培养法)。另外用纸尖获取龈下样本用于分子分析。采用巢式PCR和实时荧光定量PCR检测及定量HCMV。采用学生t检验和卡方检验比较各组。以巢式PCR为金标准,根据2×2列联表计算各检测方法的敏感性和特异性。
巢式PCR检测HCMV的效果优于实时荧光定量PCR或病毒分离培养法(P<0.0001)。然而,两种分子技术的检测频率均高于病毒培养(P<0.0001)。病毒培养仅1例慢性牙周炎呈阳性。在牙周炎组和对照组中,巢式PCR与实时荧光定量PCR的一致性分别为47.7%和4.1%。实时荧光定量PCR的敏感性为60%,而病毒分离培养法为2.8%。
总之,本研究证实人类牙周炎中存在活动性HCMV感染;然而,其感染频率似乎较低。相比之下,潜伏性牙周HCMV感染似乎更为常见。