Hemmings K W, Griffiths G S, Bulman J S
Department of Periodontology, Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.
J Clin Periodontol. 1997 Feb;24(2):110-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1997.tb00475.x.
Perioscan requires a plaque sample to detect the presence of enzymes capable of degrading N-benzoyl-DL-arginine-2-naphthylamide (BANA) from relatively few anaerobic periodontal pathogens. Periocheck assays the presence of neutral proteases in crevicular fluid. The aim of this study was to compare these test kits with traditional clinical methods of detecting periodontal disease and to monitor the ability of the kits to reflect the response to initial therapy. 19 patients with moderately severe chronic periodontitis were seen before and after a course of oral hygiene and root instrumentation consisting of 4 appointments. Clinical measurements and test assays were collected at 5 diseased sites and 2 healthy sites in each subject. Complete data from 125 sites were available for statistical analysis. At baseline Periocheck had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 61% whereas Perioscan had a sensitivity of 99% and a specificity of 55%, when related to the clinical diagnosis. A composite clinical assessment, based on improvement or deterioration of one whole unit change of the subjective clinical indices and 2 mm changes or greater in probing depth or probing attachment level, revealed 75 sites which improved following treatment, whereas 45 sites did not change and 5 sites deteriorated. The probability that the tests agreed with the clinical outcome after treatment, was calculated as 50.4% for Periocheck and 52% for Perioscan. The diagnostic kits did not reliably reflect the clinical assessment of periodontal disease in the cross sectional study, or the outcome following treatment.
Perioscan需要菌斑样本,以检测相对较少的厌氧性牙周病原体中能够降解N-苯甲酰-DL-精氨酸-2-萘胺(BANA)的酶的存在情况。Periocheck检测龈沟液中中性蛋白酶的存在情况。本研究的目的是将这些检测试剂盒与检测牙周疾病的传统临床方法进行比较,并监测这些试剂盒反映初始治疗反应的能力。19例中度重度慢性牙周炎患者在接受由4次就诊组成的口腔卫生和根面平整疗程前后接受检查。在每个受试者的5个患病部位和2个健康部位收集临床测量数据和检测分析结果。来自125个部位的完整数据可用于统计分析。与临床诊断相关时,在基线时,Periocheck的敏感性为88%,特异性为61%,而Perioscan的敏感性为99%,特异性为55%。基于主观临床指标一个整体单位变化的改善或恶化以及探诊深度或探诊附着水平2mm或更大变化的综合临床评估显示,75个部位在治疗后有所改善,而45个部位没有变化,5个部位恶化。计算得出,治疗后检测结果与临床结果一致的概率,Periocheck为50.4%,Perioscan为52%。在横断面研究中,这些诊断试剂盒未能可靠地反映牙周疾病的临床评估或治疗后的结果。