ArticleJournal of investigative and clinical dentistry2010
Detection rates of presumptive periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque samples of untreated periodontitis using either four or six pooled samples.
Article in Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of subgingival periodontal pathogens--comparison of two sampling strategies.Clinical oral investigations · 2016Article
- Subgingival plaque sampling after combined mechanical and antibiotic nonsurgical periodontal therapy.Clinical oral investigations · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimA comparison of the detection frequency and number of periodontal pathogens in patients with aggressive or generalized, severe chronic periodontitis using a gene-probe analysis.
methodsIn 16 aggressive and 34 generalized, severe chronic periodontitis patients, plaque was sampled from the deepest pockets per quadrant (MT4) and per sextant (MT6). After sampling two paper points simultaneously, one paper point from each pocket was pooled with three paper points of the other pockets (MT4). The remaining four paper points were pooled with two paper points from the deepest pockets from the two remaining sextants (MT6). Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Tannerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Treponema denticola were detected by 16S rRNA gene probes.
resultsLog-transformed counts for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans were statistically significantly higher with MT6 (aggressive: 3.21±2.94; generalized, severe chronic: 2.22±2.70) than MT4 (aggressive: 2.04±2.74; generalized, severe chronic: 1.50±2.37) (P<0.05). The detection frequency and mean counts were high for Tannerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Treponema denticola (>95%/>6.0).
conclusionAggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans was detected in higher numbers for MT6 than MT4. For both MT4 and MT6, Tannerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Treponema denticola were detected in >95% of all patients and with mean log-transformed numbers >6.0.
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.