ArticleAvicenna journal of medical biotechnology
Development and Comparison of In-house Line Probe Assay (LiPA) and SYBR Green Real-time PCR Regarding the Detection of Periodontal Pathogens.
Article in Avicenna journal of medical biotechnology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative Assessment of Primary Colonizer Adhesion on Different Resin-Based Restorative Materials Using SYBR Green qPCR.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodontal disease, which can become a chronic condition, is an inflammatory disease that upsets the soft and hard structures supporting the teeth. The aim of the present study was to design and develop an in-house Line Probe Assay (LiPA), to detect putative periodontitis-related bacterial pathogens, and compare it with SYBR Green Real-time PCR.
methodsThe LiPA method was launched using biotinylated 16s rRNA universal primers and specific probes for each of the five bacteria including
resultsThe detection limit of the LiPA was 2760 copies of targeted genes. In testing analytical specificity, only signals corresponding to the specific biotinylated products were produced. The calculated diagnostic sensitivity of the LiPA for the five bacterial targets ranged from 96.4 to 100%, whereas the diagnostic specificity was between 90.9 and 100%. Comparing the results, no noticeable difference (p=0.4795) was observed between the two methods.
conclusionTo screen periodontal pathogens, a simple, inexpensive and accurate method is desirable. The in-house LiPA, having advantages such as high specificity and sensitivity, and the ability to detect five major periodontal pathogens, offers the option of evaluating samples without the need for a post-PCR platform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30800247PMC6359689What 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.