Stomatologist № 3 (34) – 2019, pp. 22-28                                                                                                                            SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION

Features of clinical and laboratory diagnostics in periodontology

L.N. Dedovaa, Yu.L. Denisovab, A.S. Solomevichc, О.V. Каndrukevichd, P.A. Semizhone, M.V.Apanasovichf

a,bMD, PhD, DMSci, Professor, Belarusian State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus
c,dMD, PhD, Associate Professor, Belarusian State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus
ePhD, The Republican Research and Practical Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology, Minsk, Belarus
fBelarusian State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus

https://doi.org/10.32993/stomatologist.2019.3(34).2

ABSTRACT
The aim of the study. Identify the main clinical and laboratory principles of microbiological diagnosis in periodontology and identify dental instruments for the rational extraction of contents from periodontal pockets in patients with periodontal disease.
Objects and methods. A dental examination of 60 patients with clinical signs of generalized periodontitis and a periodontal pocket depth of 5-6 mm at the age of 35-44 years (main group) and 140 patients without signs of periodontal disease at the age of 20-24 years (control group). To determine the rationality of the choice of tools for extracting content from the periodontal pocket, the PCR diagnostic method was used. To extract the contents from the periodontal pocket, sterile instruments were included in the study: dental probe, excavator No. 1, periodontal probe WHO, periodontal probe North Carolina, interdental brush, paper pin.
Results and discussion. The basic clinical and laboratory principles of microbiological diagnosis in periodontology are formulated: the correct choice of the object of study; selection of adequate diagnostic tools; selection of research methods; competence of the results of microbiological diagnostics research in periodontology. The biomaterial obtained with the help of all the tools contained the DNA of microorganisms, which indicates the possibility of using all the tools included in the study to extract the contents from the periodontal pockets. However, in the samples that were selected using a paper pin, the highest amount of microorganism DNA was detected. As the DNA of the material decreases, we give the sequence of toolkit selection: a paper pin, an interdental brush (size 0), a periodontal probe WHO, a North Carolina periodontal probe, a dental probe, a dental excavator No. 1.
Conclusions. The basic principles of microbiological diagnosis in periodontology provide an opportunity in the diagnosis, planning and evaluation of treatment results. Competence of diagnosis in the choice of the object of research indicates the feasibility of studying the contents of the gingival sulcus and / or periodontal pocket in patients with periodontal disease. PCR – among modern molecular biological methods – is considered a priority. When extracting material from the periodontal pocket, the doctor is advised to observe the priority of selecting tools in the following order: paper pin, interdental brush (size 0), periodontal probe WHO, North Carolina periodontal probe, dental probe, and dental excavator No. 1.

Keywords: laboratory diagnostics periodontology, microbiology

References 

  1. Axelson, P. Periodontal disease. Diagnosis and risk prediction. Quintessense, 2002, vol. 3, pp. 95–119.
  2. Balaban N.Q. [et al.] Bacterial Persistence as a Phenotypic Switch. Science, 2004, vol. 305, no. 5690, pp. 1622–1625.
  3. Dahlen, G. Microbiological diagnostics in oral diseases. Acta Odontol. Scand., 2006, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 164–168.
  4. Davey M.E., O’Toole G.A. Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., 2000, no.64, pp. 847–867.
  5. Donlan R.M., Costerton J.W. Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms. CLIN. MIC. REV., 2002, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 167–193.
  6. Elander R. Industrial production of beta-lactam antibiotics. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2003, vol. 61 (56), pp. 385–392.
  7. Elisabeth M., Clara D., Gary C. [et al.] Bacterial diversity in the oral cavity of ten healthy individuals. ISME J., 2010, vol. 4 (8), pp. 962–974.
  8. Fujinaka, H., Takeshita T., Sato H. Relationship of periodontal clinical parameters with bacterial composition in human dental plaque. Archives of Microbiology, 2013, vol. 195, no. 6, pp. 371–383.
  9. Guobis Ž., Kareivienė V., Basevičienė N. [et al.] Microflora of the oral cavity in patients with xerostomia. Medicina (Kaunas), 2011, vol. 47 (12), pp. 646–651.
  10. Haase, G. Investigation of infectious organisms causing pericoronitis of the mandibular third molar. Journal of Oral &Maxillofacial Surgery, 2000, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 611–616.
  11. Haffajee, A.D., Yaskell T., Torresyap G. et al. Comparison between polymerase chain reaction based and checkerboard DNA hybridization techniques for microbial assessment of subgingival plaque samples. J. Clin. Periodontol., 2009, vol. 36, pp. 642–649.
  12. Haffajee, A.D., Teles R.P., Socransky S.S. Association of Eubacterium nodatum and Treponema denticola with human periodontitis lesions. Oral Microbiol. Immunol., 2006, vol.21, pp. 269¬282.
  13. Haffajee, A.D., Socransky S.S. Microbial etiological agents of destructive periodontal diseases. Periodontol., 1994, vol. 5, pp. 78–111.
  14. Holt. S.C., Ebersole J.L. Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia: the’red complex’, a prototype polybacterial pathogenicconsortium in periodontitis. Periodontology 2000, 2005, vol. 38, pp. 72–122.
  15. Loesche, W. J., Kazor C.E., Taylor G.W. The optimization of the BANA test as a screening instrument for gingivitis among subjects seeking dental treatment. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1997, vol. 24, pp. 718–726.
  16. Palmer R.J.Jr., Stoodley P. Biofilms 2007: broadened horizons and new emphases. J. Bacteriol., 2007, no. 189 (22), pp. 7948–7960.
  17. Perez-Chaparro, P.J., Rouillon A., Minet J., Lafaurie G.I., Bonnaure-Mallet M. A genotypes and PFGE profile patterns in Porphyromonas gingivalis isolates from subjectswith periodontitis. Oral Microbiol Immunol., 2009, vol. 24, pp. 423–426.
  18. Riep, B., Edesi-Neuss L., Claessen F., Skarabis H., Ehmke B., Flemmig T.F., Bernimoulin J.P., Gobel U.B., Moter A. Are putative periodontal pathogens reliable diagnostic markers? J. Clin. Microbiol., 2009, vol. 47, pp. 1705–1711.
  19. Rice S.A. [et al.] Biofilm formation and sloughing in Serratia marcescens are controlled by quorum sensing and nutrient cues. J. Bacteriol, 2005, no. 187, pp. 3477–3485.
  20. Sawhney R., Sharma R., Sharma K. Microbial Colonization on Elastomeric Ligatures during Orthodontic Therapeutics: An Overview. Turk. J. Orthod., 2018, no. 31 (1), pp. 21–25.
  21. Stewart P.S., Costerton J.W. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms Lancet, 2001, no. 358, pp. 135–138.
  22. Sukontapatipark W., Agroudi M. A., Selliseth N.J. Bacterial colonization associated with fixed orthodontic appliances: a scanning electron microscopy study. Eur. J. Orthod., 2001, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 475–484.
  23. Socransky, S.S., Haffajee A.D. Periodontal microbial ecology. Periodontology. 2000, 2005, vol. 38, pp. 135–187.
  24. Suchett-Kaye, G., Jacques Morrier J., Barsotti O. Clinical usefulness of microbiological diagnosis tools in the management of periodontal disease. Research in Microbiology, 2001, vol. 152, pp. 631–639.
  25. Tets V.V., Tets G.V., Vikina D.S. [et al.] Unknown pathogens from the human oral microflora of interest for otorhinolaryngology. Vestn. Otorinolaringol., 2014, vol. 1, pp. 33–36.
  26. Van Winkelhoff, A.J. Loos B.G., Van der Reijden W.A. Porphyromonas gingivalis, Bacteroides forsythus and other putative periodontal pathogens in subjects with and without periodontal destruction. J. Clin. Periodontol., 2002, vol. 29, pp. 1023–1028.
  27. Vandesompele, J., De Preter K., Pattyn F., Poppe B., van Roy N., De Paepe A., Speleman F. Accurate normalization of real time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biol., 2002, vol. 3, pp. 88–110.

Correspondence to:  Е-mail: Dedova.bsmu@mail.ru