JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Loesche, W J
Right arrow Articles by Hujoel, P P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Loesche, W J
Right arrow Articles by Hujoel, P P
J Clin Microbiol. 1992 February; 30(2): 418-426

Comparison of various detection methods for periodontopathic bacteria: can culture be considered the primary reference standard?

W J Loesche, D E Lopatin, J Stoll, N van Poperin and P P Hujoel

Department of Biological and Materials Sciences, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor 48109-1078.

ABSTRACT

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.

J Clin Microbiol. 1992 February; 30(2): 418-426




This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1992 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.