| Literature DB >> 35068845 |
Anila Neelakandan1, Ravishankar Potluri1, Pradeep Kumar Yadalam1, Priyankar Chakraborty1, A V Saravanan1, Rex Arunraj2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The periodontal microbiome being complex, this study was aimed to detect and quantify the prevalence of Filifactor alocis in various stages of periodontitis and to evaluate its prospect as a diagnostic marker for periodontal disease. SETTINGS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Chronic periodontitis; Filifactor alocis; microbial load; real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction
Year: 2021 PMID: 35068845 PMCID: PMC8740782 DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_803_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contemp Clin Dent ISSN: 0976-2361
Figure 1Representation of the various clinical specimens involved in the study. (a) Healthy periodontium, (b) chronic periodontitis, (c) aggressive periodontitis, and (d) sample collection using paper points
Figure 2Absolute quantification of Filifactor alocis in healthy, chronic and aggressive subjects of periodontitis. The 16srDNA cloned plasmid was used as a standard to quantify Filifactor alocis in the subjects (a). The average absolute count of the bacteria in the various subjects were estimated by pooling of paper points of individual subjects and absolute count quantified in triplicates using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (b)
Summarises the mean, standard deviation, maximum and the minimum values of count, age, PPD and clinical attachment level in each group
| Mean | SD | SE | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | |||||
| Aggressive | 939.84 | 670.03 | 149.82 | 127.37 | 2796.95 |
| Chronic | 32,409.85 | 88,735.34 | 19,841.83 | 96.23 | 379,451.37 |
| Healthy | 3046.15 | 1784.16 | 398.95 | 337.07 | 6473.92 |
| Total | 12,131.95 | 52408.83 | 6765.95 | 96.23 | 379,451.37 |
| Age | |||||
| Aggressive | 26.20 | 3.32 | 0.74 | 21.00 | 33.00 |
| Chronic | 43.05 | 9.29 | 2.08 | 27.00 | 60.00 |
| Healthy | 36.85 | 8.55 | 1.91 | 24.00 | 53.00 |
| Total | 35.37 | 10.20 | 1.32 | 21.00 | 60.00 |
| Mean PPD | |||||
| Aggressive | 6.75 | 1.09 | 0.24 | 5.00 | 9.00 |
| Chronic | 5.71 | 0.98 | 0.22 | 4.25 | 7.50 |
| Healthy | 2.45 | 0.65 | 0.14 | 1.00 | 3.50 |
| Total | 4.97 | 2.06 | 0.27 | 1.00 | 9.00 |
| Mean CAL | |||||
| Aggressive | 7.28 | 1.47 | 0.33 | 5.00 | 10.00 |
| Chronic | 6.23 | 1.23 | 0.28 | 5.00 | 9.00 |
| Healthy | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total | 4.50 | 3.42 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
n denotes the number of subjects in each group (20). CAL: Clinical attachment level; PPD: Probing pocket depth; SD: Standard deviation; SE: Standard error
Intergroup and intragroup comparison of count, age, mean probing pocket depth, and mean clinical attachment level using analysis of variance with P value at a significance of 0.05
| Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
| Significant | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | |||||
| Between groups | 12,380,164,074 | 2 | 6,190,082,037 | 2.357 | 0.104 |
| Within groups | 149,674,263,552 | 57 | 2,625,864,273 | ||
| Total | 162,054,427,626 | 59 | |||
| Age | |||||
| Between groups | 2905 | 2 | 1453 | 25.566 | 0.0005 |
| Within groups | 3238.700 | 57 | 56.819 | ||
| Total | 6143.933 | 59 | |||
| Mean PPD | |||||
| Between groups | 201.402 | 2 | 100.701 | 116.881 | 0.0005 |
| Within groups | 49.109 | 57 | 0.862 | ||
| Total | 250.511 | 59 | |||
| Mean CAL | |||||
| Between groups | 618.525 | 2 | 309.263 | 251.918 | 0.0005 |
| Within groups | 69.975 | 57 | 1.228 | ||
| Total | 688.500 | 59 | |||
|
| Highly significant at | ||||
| | Not significant at | ||||
Intergroup comparison of the bacterial count shows that it is statistically not significant. A large F value indicates a varied proportion of mean squares among the three groups. ANOVA: Analysis of variance; PPD: Probing pocket depth; CAL: Clinical attachment level
Intragroup correlation of count with age, mean probing pocket depth, and mean clinical attachment level in Group C by Pearson coefficient correlation with P value significant at ≤0.01
| CorrelationsC | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Age | Mean PPD | Mean CAL |
| Pearson correlation | 0.580** | 0.629** | 0.682** |
| Significant (two-tailed) | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| **Highly significant at | |||
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Group C: Chronic; PPD: Probing pocket depth; CAL: Clinical attachment level
Figure 3The correlation between age and bacterial count in Group A, Group B, and Group C shows a linear increase in the count as age increases with a positive linear association of 0.695 (a), 0.441 (b), and 0.337 (c) respectively. The correlation between mean probing pocket depth and bacterial count in Group A, Group B, and Group C shows a linear increase in the count as mean probing pocket depth increases with a positive linear association of 0.538 (d), 0.568 (e), and 0.396 (f). The correlation between mean clinical attachment and bacterial count in Group B and Group C shows a linear increase in the count as mean clinical attachment increases with a positive linear association of 0.581 (g), and 0.465 (h) respectively
Intragroup correlation of count with age and mean probing pocket depth in Group A by Pearson coefficient correlation with P value significant at ≤0.01
| CorrelationsA | ||
|---|---|---|
| Count | Age | Mean PPD |
| Pearson correlation | 0.834** | 0.733** |
| Significant (two-tailed) | 0.0005 | 0.0005 |
| 20 | 20 | |
|
| **Highly significant at | |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Group A: Healthy; PPD: Probing pocket depth
Intragroup correlation of count with age, mean probing pocket depth, and mean clinical attachment level in Group B by Pearson coefficient correlation with P value significant at ≤0.01
| CorrelationsB | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Age | Mean PPD | Mean CAL |
| Pearson correlation | 0.664** | 0.754** | 0.749** |
| Significant (two-tailed) | 0.001 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 |
| 20 | 20 | 20 | |
|
| **Highly significant at | ||
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Group B: Aggressive; PPD: Probing pocket depth; CAL: Clinical attachment level