Comparison of various detection methods for periodontopathic bacteria: can culture be considered the primary reference standard?
Comparison of various detection methods for periodontopathic bacteria: can culture be considered the primary reference standard?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1128/jcm.30.2.418-426.1992
复制
发表时间：
1992-02
影响因子：
9.4
通讯作者：
W. J. Loesche;D. Lopatin;'. J. Stoll;'. Neal;Van;Poperin;P. Hujoel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. J. Loesche;D. Lopatin;'. J. Stoll;'. Neal;Van;Poperin;P. Hujoel
牙周感染诊断测试的发展提出了一个问题，即评估新测试的适当参考标准或“金标准”应该是什么。本研究的目的是比较几种检测方法的能力，即连续稀释厌氧培养和/或显微镜程序，DNA探针程序和免疫试剂，使用酶联免疫吸附法和间接免疫荧光法检测密螺旋体，牙龈卟啉单胞菌，连翘拟杆菌，在204个牙周病变部位的龈下菌斑样本中发现放线菌。四种监测物种的流行率随物种和检测方法的不同而变化。99%的斑块中存在螺旋体，而放线菌属的检测频率最低。培养法对三种可培养种的流行率最低。这就提出了一个问题，即通过培养获得的结果，还是通过DNA探针和免疫试剂获得的结果，哪个是最可靠的。通过查看所有检测方法确定的受监测生物体的流行情况，解决了这一问题。如果该物种被三种或四种检测方法检测到，那么它被认为是存在的，而如果它被三种或四种检测方法没有检测到，那么它被认为是不存在的。结果表明，DNA探针和免疫试剂对牙龈假单胞菌、放线菌和连翘假单胞菌的检测效果显著优于培养法（P < 0.05），对牙齿假单胞菌的检测效果与显微镜法相当。
The development of diagnostic tests for a periodontal infection raises the issue as to what the appropriate reference standard, or "gold standard," should be for the evaluation of a new test. The present research was initiated to compare the ability of several detection methods, i.e., a serial dilution anaerobic culture and/or microscopic procedure, a DNA probe procedure, and immunological reagents using both an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and an indirect immunofluorescence assay to detect Treponema denticola, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Bacteroides forsythus, and Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans in subgingival plaque samples taken from 204 periodontally diseased tooth sites. The prevalence of the four monitored species varied as a function of both the species and the detection method. Spirochetes were present in 99% of the plaques, whereas A. actinomycetemcomitans was detected at the lowest frequency. The culture method yielded the lowest prevalence values for the three cultivable species. This raised the question as to which results, those obtained by culture or those obtained by the DNA probes and the immunological reagents, were the most reliable. This issue was addressed by looking at the prevalence profile of the monitored organisms, as determined by all the detection methods. If the species was detected by three or four of the detection methods, then it was considered present, whereas if it was absent by three or four of the detection methods, then it was considered absent. This approach showed the DNA probes and immunological reagents to be significantly superior (P less than 0.05) to the culture approach for the detection of P. gingivalis, A. actinomycetemcomitans, and B. forsythus and to be comparable to the microscopic approach in the detection of T. denticola.