ArticleBMC oral health2014
Comparisons between two biochemical markers in evaluating periodontal disease severity: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of Gingival Crevicular Fluid Sampling, Analytical Methods, and Oral Biomarkers for the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Periodontal Diseases: A Systematic Review.Disease markers · 2016Pooled it
- Oral and Gingival Crevicular Fluid Biomarkers for Jawbone Turnover Diseases: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Recent advances in the pathogenesis and prevention strategies of dental calculus.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2024Review
- Microbial β-glucuronidases drive human periodontal disease etiology.Science advances · 2023Article
- Odontogenic ameloblast-associated protein (ODAM) in gingival crevicular fluid for site-specific diagnostic value of periodontitis: a pilot study.BMC oral health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare two biochemical markers, which have been previously used to determine the degrees of alveolar bone destruction, in evaluating periodontal disease severity.
methodsThe WF6 epitope of chondroitin sulfate (CS) and the alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels were determined in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples collected from patients with various degrees of disease severity, including ten patients with gingivitis (50 gingivitis sites) and 33 patients with chronic periodontitis (including gingivitis, slight, moderate, and severe periodontitis sites; n = 50 each), as well as from ten healthy volunteers (50 healthy sites) by Periopaper strips. The levels of CS and ALP were measured by an ELISA and a fluorometric assay, respectively.
resultsThe results demonstrated low levels of CS and ALP in non-destructive and slightly destructive periodontitis sites, whereas significantly high levels of these two biomolecules were shown in moderately and severely destructive sites (p < 0.05). Although a significant difference in CS levels was found between moderate and severe periodontitis sites, no difference in ALP levels was found. Stronger correlations were found between CS levels and periodontal parameters, including probing depth, loss of clinical attachment levels, gingival index and plaque index, than between ALP levels and these parameters.
conclusionsIt is suggested that the CS level is a better diagnostic marker than the ALP level for evaluating distinct severity of chronic periodontitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.