Zappa U, Reinking-Zappa M, Graf H, Gmür R, Savitt E
School of Dental Medicine, Department of Periodontology, University of Berne, Switzerland.
Arch Oral Biol. 1990;35 Suppl:161S-164S. doi: 10.1016/0003-9969(90)90148-4.
Several methods are currently being used to identify specific bacteria in dental plaque, namely direct culture, serological techniques and DNA probes. Culture methods are labour-intensive, dependent on the viability of the cells, and require fastidious growth conditions. Serological and DNA probes allow rapid strain-specific identification of periodontal pathogens with limited effort. The purpose of the present study was to compare results from serological and DNA probes in assessing and quantitating the presence of three suspected periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque: Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Bacteroides gingivalis and Bact. intermedius. Subgingival bacterial samples were obtained from 4 periodontal sites of each of 13 patients with untreated moderate to advanced adult periodontitis. Samples were taken using 2 paper points that were simultaneously inserted for 10 s to the bottom of the periodontal pockets. The plaque from one paper point was analysed by immunofluorescence using monoclonal antibodies. The other sample was analysed by species-specific cloned DNA probes. The number of bacteria per millilitre was calculated for both methods, and used for comparisons of results obtained with the two techniques. Results from indirect immunofluorescence and DNA hybridization analyses were negative for A. actinomycetemcomitans across all samples. Fluorescence did not detect bacteria at levels lower than 10(4), while the DNA probes identified organisms at levels of 10(3). Similar numbers of samples positive for Bact. gingivalis were obtained with either method (p = 0.227), and the results were not independent. A significantly greater proportion of Bact. intermedius-positive samples was detected by immunofluorescence (p = 0.0039), and the results of immunofluorescence and DNA hybridization were independent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
目前有几种方法用于识别牙菌斑中的特定细菌,即直接培养、血清学技术和DNA探针。培养方法劳动强度大,依赖细胞活力,且需要苛刻的生长条件。血清学和DNA探针能够以有限的工作量快速进行菌株特异性牙周病原体鉴定。本研究的目的是比较血清学和DNA探针在评估和定量龈下菌斑中三种可疑牙周病原体(伴放线放线杆菌、牙龈拟杆菌和中间普氏菌)存在情况时的结果。从13例未经治疗的中度至重度成人牙周炎患者的每个患者的4个牙周部位获取龈下细菌样本。使用2个纸尖同时插入牙周袋底部10秒来采集样本。一个纸尖上的菌斑用单克隆抗体通过免疫荧光法分析。另一个样本用种特异性克隆DNA探针分析。计算两种方法每毫升中的细菌数量,并用于比较两种技术获得的结果。在所有样本中,间接免疫荧光和DNA杂交分析结果显示伴放线放线杆菌均为阴性。荧光检测不到低于10⁴水平的细菌,而DNA探针能鉴定出10³水平的微生物。用两种方法获得的牙龈拟杆菌阳性样本数量相似(p = 0.227),且结果不具独立性。免疫荧光法检测到的中间普氏菌阳性样本比例显著更高(p = 0.0039),免疫荧光和DNA杂交结果具有独立性。(摘要截短至250字)