Carpegen® real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification
Identifieur interne : 002F81 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 002F80; suivant : 002F82Carpegen® real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification
Auteurs : C. Verner ; P. Lemaitre ; A. Daniel ; B. Giumelli ; N. Lakhssassi ; M. SixouSource :
- Oral Microbiology and Immunology [ 0902-0055 ] ; 2006-12.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Actinobacillus, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Actinomycetemcomitans, Aggressive periodontitis, Anaerobic, Anaerobic chamber, Anaerobic culture, Anaerobic periopathogens, Antibiogram data, Antibiotic, Antibiotic susceptibility test, Antimicrobial susceptibility variation, Bacterial culture, Bacteroides gingivalis, Bacteroides intermedius, Chirurgie dentaire, Clin, Clin microbiol, Clin periodontol, Clinical relevance, Comparative analysis, Culture detection, Culture medium, Culture method, Dead bacteria, Denticola, Forsythia, Fusobacterium, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Gingivalis, Haffajee, Intermedia, Microbiol, Microbiologic testing, Microbiological diagnosis, Molecular technique, Molecular techniques, Northern europe, Nucleatum, Oral ecosystem biomaterials, Oral microbiol immunol, Other hand, Paper points, Pathogen, Pathogenic bacteria, Perio diagnostics, Periodontal, Periodontal disease, Periodontal pathogen, Periodontal pathogens, Periodontitis, Periodontol, Periopathogens, Polymerase chain reaction, Porphyromonas, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Probe, Rapid method, Real time, Same sites, Schweiz monatsschr zahnmed, Selective medium, Sixou, Socransky, Standard deviation, Subgingival, Subgingival plaque samples, Tannerella, Tannerella forsythia, Target periopathogens, Toxic clone, Transport medium, Treponema denticola, Tsbv medium.
- Teeft :
- Actinobacillus, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Actinomycetemcomitans, Aggressive periodontitis, Anaerobic, Anaerobic chamber, Anaerobic culture, Anaerobic periopathogens, Antibiogram data, Antibiotic, Antibiotic susceptibility test, Antimicrobial susceptibility variation, Bacterial culture, Bacteroides gingivalis, Bacteroides intermedius, Chirurgie dentaire, Clin, Clin microbiol, Clin periodontol, Clinical relevance, Comparative analysis, Culture detection, Culture medium, Culture method, Dead bacteria, Denticola, Forsythia, Fusobacterium, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Gingivalis, Haffajee, Intermedia, Microbiol, Microbiologic testing, Microbiological diagnosis, Molecular technique, Molecular techniques, Northern europe, Nucleatum, Oral ecosystem biomaterials, Oral microbiol immunol, Other hand, Paper points, Pathogen, Pathogenic bacteria, Perio diagnostics, Periodontal, Periodontal disease, Periodontal pathogen, Periodontal pathogens, Periodontitis, Periodontol, Periopathogens, Polymerase chain reaction, Porphyromonas, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Probe, Rapid method, Real time, Same sites, Schweiz monatsschr zahnmed, Selective medium, Sixou, Socransky, Standard deviation, Subgingival, Subgingival plaque samples, Tannerella, Tannerella forsythia, Target periopathogens, Toxic clone, Transport medium, Treponema denticola, Tsbv medium.
Abstract
Background/aims: The aim of this study was to compare two methods of microbiological diagnosis, anaerobic bacterial culture and real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for the detection of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Treponema denticola.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2006.00297.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Carpegen® real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification</title><author><name sortKey="Verner, C" sort="Verner, C" uniqKey="Verner C" first="C." last="Verner">C. Verner</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lemaitre, P" sort="Lemaitre, P" uniqKey="Lemaitre P" first="P." last="Lemaitre">P. Lemaitre</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Daniel, A" sort="Daniel, A" uniqKey="Daniel A" first="A." last="Daniel">A. Daniel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Giumelli, B" sort="Giumelli, B" uniqKey="Giumelli B" first="B." last="Giumelli">B. Giumelli</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lakhssassi, N" sort="Lakhssassi, N" uniqKey="Lakhssassi N" first="N." last="Lakhssassi">N. Lakhssassi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sixou, M" sort="Sixou, M" uniqKey="Sixou M" first="M." last="Sixou">M. Sixou</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0</idno><date when="2006" year="2006">2006</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1399-302X.2006.00297.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002F81</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">002F81</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Carpegen<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification</title><author><name sortKey="Verner, C" sort="Verner, C" uniqKey="Verner C" first="C." last="Verner">C. Verner</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lemaitre, P" sort="Lemaitre, P" uniqKey="Lemaitre P" first="P." last="Lemaitre">P. Lemaitre</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Daniel, A" sort="Daniel, A" uniqKey="Daniel A" first="A." last="Daniel">A. Daniel</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Giumelli, B" sort="Giumelli, B" uniqKey="Giumelli B" first="B." last="Giumelli">B. Giumelli</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lakhssassi, N" sort="Lakhssassi, N" uniqKey="Lakhssassi N" first="N." last="Lakhssassi">N. Lakhssassi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sixou, M" sort="Sixou, M" uniqKey="Sixou M" first="M." last="Sixou">M. Sixou</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Oral Microbiology and Immunology</title><title level="j" type="alt">ORAL MICROBIOLOGY IMMUNOLOGY</title><idno type="ISSN">0902-0055</idno><idno type="eISSN">1399-302X</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">21</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="341">341</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="346">346</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2006-12">2006-12</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0902-0055</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0902-0055</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Actinobacillus</term><term>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Aggressive periodontitis</term><term>Anaerobic</term><term>Anaerobic chamber</term><term>Anaerobic culture</term><term>Anaerobic periopathogens</term><term>Antibiogram data</term><term>Antibiotic</term><term>Antibiotic susceptibility test</term><term>Antimicrobial susceptibility variation</term><term>Bacterial culture</term><term>Bacteroides gingivalis</term><term>Bacteroides intermedius</term><term>Chirurgie dentaire</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin microbiol</term><term>Clin periodontol</term><term>Clinical relevance</term><term>Comparative analysis</term><term>Culture detection</term><term>Culture medium</term><term>Culture method</term><term>Dead bacteria</term><term>Denticola</term><term>Forsythia</term><term>Fusobacterium</term><term>Fusobacterium nucleatum</term><term>Gingivalis</term><term>Haffajee</term><term>Intermedia</term><term>Microbiol</term><term>Microbiologic testing</term><term>Microbiological diagnosis</term><term>Molecular technique</term><term>Molecular techniques</term><term>Northern europe</term><term>Nucleatum</term><term>Oral ecosystem biomaterials</term><term>Oral microbiol immunol</term><term>Other hand</term><term>Paper points</term><term>Pathogen</term><term>Pathogenic bacteria</term><term>Perio diagnostics</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal disease</term><term>Periodontal pathogen</term><term>Periodontal pathogens</term><term>Periodontitis</term><term>Periodontol</term><term>Periopathogens</term><term>Polymerase chain reaction</term><term>Porphyromonas</term><term>Porphyromonas gingivalis</term><term>Prevotella intermedia</term><term>Probe</term><term>Rapid method</term><term>Real time</term><term>Same sites</term><term>Schweiz monatsschr zahnmed</term><term>Selective medium</term><term>Sixou</term><term>Socransky</term><term>Standard deviation</term><term>Subgingival</term><term>Subgingival plaque samples</term><term>Tannerella</term><term>Tannerella forsythia</term><term>Target periopathogens</term><term>Toxic clone</term><term>Transport medium</term><term>Treponema denticola</term><term>Tsbv medium</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Actinobacillus</term><term>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Aggressive periodontitis</term><term>Anaerobic</term><term>Anaerobic chamber</term><term>Anaerobic culture</term><term>Anaerobic periopathogens</term><term>Antibiogram data</term><term>Antibiotic</term><term>Antibiotic susceptibility test</term><term>Antimicrobial susceptibility variation</term><term>Bacterial culture</term><term>Bacteroides gingivalis</term><term>Bacteroides intermedius</term><term>Chirurgie dentaire</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin microbiol</term><term>Clin periodontol</term><term>Clinical relevance</term><term>Comparative analysis</term><term>Culture detection</term><term>Culture medium</term><term>Culture method</term><term>Dead bacteria</term><term>Denticola</term><term>Forsythia</term><term>Fusobacterium</term><term>Fusobacterium nucleatum</term><term>Gingivalis</term><term>Haffajee</term><term>Intermedia</term><term>Microbiol</term><term>Microbiologic testing</term><term>Microbiological diagnosis</term><term>Molecular technique</term><term>Molecular techniques</term><term>Northern europe</term><term>Nucleatum</term><term>Oral ecosystem biomaterials</term><term>Oral microbiol immunol</term><term>Other hand</term><term>Paper points</term><term>Pathogen</term><term>Pathogenic bacteria</term><term>Perio diagnostics</term><term>Periodontal</term><term>Periodontal disease</term><term>Periodontal pathogen</term><term>Periodontal pathogens</term><term>Periodontitis</term><term>Periodontol</term><term>Periopathogens</term><term>Polymerase chain reaction</term><term>Porphyromonas</term><term>Porphyromonas gingivalis</term><term>Prevotella intermedia</term><term>Probe</term><term>Rapid method</term><term>Real time</term><term>Same sites</term><term>Schweiz monatsschr zahnmed</term><term>Selective medium</term><term>Sixou</term><term>Socransky</term><term>Standard deviation</term><term>Subgingival</term><term>Subgingival plaque samples</term><term>Tannerella</term><term>Tannerella forsythia</term><term>Target periopathogens</term><term>Toxic clone</term><term>Transport medium</term><term>Treponema denticola</term><term>Tsbv medium</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Background/aims: The aim of this study was to compare two methods of microbiological diagnosis, anaerobic bacterial culture and real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for the detection of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Treponema denticola.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>pathogen</json:string><json:string>periodontal</json:string><json:string>actinomycetemcomitans</json:string><json:string>gingivalis</json:string><json:string>periodontitis</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>forsythia</json:string><json:string>periopathogens</json:string><json:string>periodontol</json:string><json:string>nucleatum</json:string><json:string>intermedia</json:string><json:string>microbiol</json:string><json:string>actinobacillus</json:string><json:string>actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</json:string><json:string>subgingival</json:string><json:string>denticola</json:string><json:string>anaerobic</json:string><json:string>sixou</json:string><json:string>clin periodontol</json:string><json:string>anaerobic culture</json:string><json:string>clin microbiol</json:string><json:string>socransky</json:string><json:string>porphyromonas</json:string><json:string>tannerella</json:string><json:string>haffajee</json:string><json:string>fusobacterium</json:string><json:string>porphyromonas gingivalis</json:string><json:string>periodontal pathogens</json:string><json:string>aggressive periodontitis</json:string><json:string>antibiotic</json:string><json:string>tannerella forsythia</json:string><json:string>fusobacterium nucleatum</json:string><json:string>polymerase chain reaction</json:string><json:string>bacterial culture</json:string><json:string>periodontal disease</json:string><json:string>prevotella intermedia</json:string><json:string>molecular technique</json:string><json:string>antibiotic susceptibility test</json:string><json:string>oral ecosystem biomaterials</json:string><json:string>periodontal pathogen</json:string><json:string>subgingival plaque samples</json:string><json:string>oral microbiol immunol</json:string><json:string>paper points</json:string><json:string>transport medium</json:string><json:string>culture method</json:string><json:string>other hand</json:string><json:string>probe</json:string><json:string>chirurgie dentaire</json:string><json:string>treponema denticola</json:string><json:string>culture detection</json:string><json:string>real time</json:string><json:string>pathogenic bacteria</json:string><json:string>northern europe</json:string><json:string>culture medium</json:string><json:string>dead bacteria</json:string><json:string>target periopathogens</json:string><json:string>bacteroides gingivalis</json:string><json:string>bacteroides intermedius</json:string><json:string>antibiogram data</json:string><json:string>microbiological diagnosis</json:string><json:string>schweiz monatsschr zahnmed</json:string><json:string>molecular techniques</json:string><json:string>anaerobic chamber</json:string><json:string>tsbv medium</json:string><json:string>selective medium</json:string><json:string>toxic clone</json:string><json:string>rapid method</json:string><json:string>antimicrobial susceptibility variation</json:string><json:string>anaerobic periopathogens</json:string><json:string>standard deviation</json:string><json:string>clinical relevance</json:string><json:string>microbiologic testing</json:string><json:string>comparative analysis</json:string><json:string>same sites</json:string><json:string>perio diagnostics</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>C. Verner</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>P. Lemaitre</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>A. Daniel</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>B. Giumelli</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>N. Lakhssassi</name><affiliations><json:string>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>M. Sixou</name><affiliations><json:string>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>anaerobic bacterial culture</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Fusobacterium nucleatum</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>microbiological diagnosis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>periodontopathogens</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Porphyromonas gingivalis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>probe detection</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>real‐time polymerase chain reaction</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Prevotella intermedia</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Tannerella forsythia</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Treponema denticola</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>OMI297</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-RJF5WJGM-T</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background/aims: The aim of this study was to compare two methods of microbiological diagnosis, anaerobic bacterial culture and real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for the detection of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Treponema denticola.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.72</score><pdfWordCount>4240</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>29245</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>40</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>351</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>11</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Carpegen® real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification</title><pmid><json:string>17064390</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Oral Microbiology and Immunology</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1399-302X</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0902-0055</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1399-302X</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>OMI</json:string></publisherId><volume>21</volume><issue>6</issue><pages><first>341</first><last>346</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2006</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem</json:string><json:string>Laboratory of Epidemiology, Faculte</json:string><json:string>Sure Dent Corp., Seoul, Korea</json:string><json:string>France Tel</json:string><json:string>GABA InternationalÒ Laboratories</json:string><json:string>France Verner</json:string><json:string>Anaerobic Environmental Chamber, Sheldon Mfg, Cornelius, OR</json:string><json:string>MeridolÒ Perio Diagnostics</json:string><json:string>GABA International</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>P. Lemaitre</json:string><json:string>A. Daniel</json:string><json:string>La Coquette</json:string><json:string>Mr Alain</json:string><json:string>N. Lakhssassi</json:string><json:string>M. Sixou</json:string><json:string>B. Giumelli</json:string><json:string>Real Time</json:string><json:string>Susan Becker</json:string><json:string>L. Dubreuil</json:string><json:string>Michel Sixou</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>UK</json:string><json:string>Hampshire</json:string><json:string>Europe</json:string><json:string>Toulouse</json:string><json:string>France</json:string><json:string>Lille</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Verner et al.</json:string><json:string>Lau et al.</json:string><json:string>Lakhssassi et al.</json:string><json:string>Poulsen et al.</json:string><json:string>JervøeStorm et al.</json:string><json:string>Mellado et al.</json:string><json:string>Haubek et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-RJF5WJGM-T</json:string></ark><categories><wos></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - Microbiology (medical)</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string><json:string>1 - Life Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Immunology and Microbiology</json:string><json:string>3 - Immunology</json:string><json:string>1 - Life Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Immunology and Microbiology</json:string><json:string>3 - Microbiology</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2006</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2006</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1399-302X.2006.00297.x</json:string></doi><id>6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Carpegen<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2006-12"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Carpegen<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification</title><title level="a" type="short">Carpegen® RT‐PCR for periodontal pathogen identification</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">C.</forename><surname>Verner</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">P.</forename><surname>Lemaitre</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">A.</forename><surname>Daniel</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">B.</forename><surname>Giumelli</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">N.</forename><surname>Lakhssassi</surname></persName><affiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">M.</forename><surname>Sixou</surname></persName><affiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-RJF5WJGM-T</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1399-302X.2006.00297.x</idno><idno type="unit">OMI297</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:OMI.OMI297.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Oral Microbiology and Immunology</title><title level="j" type="alt">ORAL MICROBIOLOGY IMMUNOLOGY</title><idno type="pISSN">0902-0055</idno><idno type="eISSN">1399-302X</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1399-302X</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/omi.2006.21.issue-6</idno><idno type="product">OMI</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">21</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">6</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="341">341</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="346">346</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2006-12"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Background/aims: </hi> The aim of this study was to compare two methods of microbiological diagnosis, anaerobic bacterial culture and real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for the detection of <hi rend="italic">Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</hi>, <hi rend="italic">Porphyromonas gingivalis</hi>, <hi rend="italic">Prevotella intermedia</hi>, <hi rend="italic">Tannerella forsythia</hi>, <hi rend="italic">Fusobacterium nucleatum</hi>, and <hi rend="italic">Treponema denticola</hi>.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Methods: </hi> Seventy‐two samples were collected from 18 patients who were suffering from aggressive periodontitis. The data obtained were compared for the two methods.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results: </hi> The results obtained with real‐time PCR were different from those obtained with bacterial culture. The detection differences were 3% for <hi rend="italic">A. actinomycetemcomitans</hi>, 8.33% for <hi rend="italic">P. intermedia</hi>, and 12.5% for <hi rend="italic">F. nucleatum</hi>. However, the differences for <hi rend="italic">P. gingivalis</hi> and <hi rend="italic">T. forsythia</hi> were 51.39% and 36.11%, respectively. No comparison was possible for <hi rend="italic">T. denticola</hi> because it cannot be identified in culture. The variations found were the result of the better detection level (10<hi rend="superscript">2</hi> pathogens) of the PCR probe. Unlike bacterial culture, PCR allows the detection of <hi rend="italic">T. denticola</hi>, which does not forming colonies and is oxygen sensitive. For <hi rend="italic">F. nucleatum</hi>, <hi rend="italic">T. forsythia</hi> and <hi rend="italic">P. gingivalis</hi>, the real‐time PCR technique was more sensitive than culture.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusion: </hi> Good results were obtained with the real‐time PCR technique for the six periopathogens targeted. This method seems to be indicated for its simplicity, rapidity and reproducibility but it cannot analyze data for an antibiotic susceptibility test. The periodontist must therefore choose one of these two methods according to his specific clinical objective: to obtain rapid, specific detection even with weak initial concentrations (but for targeted periopathogens only) or to be non‐specific and analyze the pathological activity with an antibiogram.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1"><hi rend="italic">Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</hi></term><term xml:id="k2">anaerobic bacterial culture</term><term xml:id="k3"><hi rend="italic">Fusobacterium nucleatum</hi></term><term xml:id="k4">microbiological diagnosis</term><term xml:id="k5">periodontopathogens</term><term xml:id="k6"><hi rend="italic">Porphyromonas gingivalis</hi></term><term xml:id="k7">probe detection</term><term xml:id="k8">real‐time polymerase chain reaction</term><term xml:id="k9"><hi rend="italic">Prevotella intermedia</hi></term><term xml:id="k10"><hi rend="italic">Tannerella forsythia</hi></term><term xml:id="k11"><hi rend="italic">Treponema denticola</hi></term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1399-302X</doi><issn type="print">0902-0055</issn><issn type="electronic">1399-302X</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="OMI"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="ORAL MICROBIOLOGY IMMUNOLOGY">Oral Microbiology and Immunology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12006"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/omi.2006.21.issue-6</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="21">21</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="6">6</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2006-12">December 2006</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="1" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1399-302X.2006.00297.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="OMI297"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2006-10-24"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2006-10-24"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="341">341</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="346">346</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Michel Sixou, Département d'Epidémiologie des Maladies Infectieuses, Laboratoire d'Ecosystème Buccal, Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université Paul‐Sabatier, 3, Chemin des Maraîchers, 31062 Toulouse, France
Tel.: + 33 5 62 17 29 60; fax: + 33 5 62 57 13 57; e‐mail: <email>sixou@cict.fr</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:OMI.OMI297.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication March 21, 2006</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="1"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="2"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Carpegen<sup>®</sup> real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification</title><title type="shortAuthors"><i>Verner et al.</i></title><title type="short"><i>Carpegen<sup>®</sup> RT‐PCR for periodontal pathogen identification</i></title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>C.</givenNames><familyName>Verner</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>P.</givenNames><familyName>Lemaitre</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>A.</givenNames><familyName>Daniel</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>B.</givenNames><familyName>Giumelli</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>N.</givenNames><familyName>Lakhssassi</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr6" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>M.</givenNames><familyName>Sixou</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="FR"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="FR"><unparsedAffiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1"><i>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">anaerobic bacterial culture</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3"><i>Fusobacterium nucleatum</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">microbiological diagnosis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">periodontopathogens</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6"><i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="k7">probe detection</keyword><keyword xml:id="k8">real‐time polymerase chain reaction</keyword><keyword xml:id="k9"><i>Prevotella intermedia</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="k10"><i>Tannerella forsythia</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="k11"><i>Treponema denticola</i></keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><!--
Verner C, Lemaitre P, Daniel A, Giumelli B, Lakhssassi N, Sixou M. Carpegen® real-time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification.
Oral Microbiol Immunol 2006: 21: 341–346.© Blackwell Munksgaard, 2006.
--><p><b>Background/aims: </b> The aim of this study was to compare two methods of microbiological diagnosis, anaerobic bacterial culture and real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for the detection of <i>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</i>, <i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i>, <i>Prevotella intermedia</i>, <i>Tannerella forsythia</i>, <i>Fusobacterium nucleatum</i>, and <i>Treponema denticola</i>.</p><p><b>Methods: </b> Seventy‐two samples were collected from 18 patients who were suffering from aggressive periodontitis. The data obtained were compared for the two methods.</p><p><b>Results: </b> The results obtained with real‐time PCR were different from those obtained with bacterial culture. The detection differences were 3% for <i>A. actinomycetemcomitans</i>, 8.33% for <i>P. intermedia</i>, and 12.5% for <i>F. nucleatum</i>. However, the differences for <i>P. gingivalis</i> and <i>T. forsythia</i> were 51.39% and 36.11%, respectively. No comparison was possible for <i>T. denticola</i> because it cannot be identified in culture. The variations found were the result of the better detection level (10<sup>2</sup> pathogens) of the PCR probe. Unlike bacterial culture, PCR allows the detection of <i>T. denticola</i>, which does not forming colonies and is oxygen sensitive. For <i>F. nucleatum</i>, <i>T. forsythia</i> and <i>P. gingivalis</i>, the real‐time PCR technique was more sensitive than culture.</p><p><b>Conclusion: </b> Good results were obtained with the real‐time PCR technique for the six periopathogens targeted. This method seems to be indicated for its simplicity, rapidity and reproducibility but it cannot analyze data for an antibiotic susceptibility test. The periodontist must therefore choose one of these two methods according to his specific clinical objective: to obtain rapid, specific detection even with weak initial concentrations (but for targeted periopathogens only) or to be non‐specific and analyze the pathological activity with an antibiogram.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Carpegen® real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Carpegen® RT‐PCR for periodontal pathogen identification</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Carpegen® real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">C.</namePart><namePart type="family">Verner</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lemaitre</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Daniel</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">B.</namePart><namePart type="family">Giumelli</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Nantes, France</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">N.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lakhssassi</namePart><affiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Sixou</namePart><affiliation>Laboratory of Oral Ecosystem & Biomaterials (LOEB), Faculty of Dentistry, Toulouse, France</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2006-12</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication March 21, 2006</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2006</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">1</extent><extent unit="tables">2</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Background/aims: The aim of this study was to compare two methods of microbiological diagnosis, anaerobic bacterial culture and real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for the detection of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Treponema denticola.</abstract><abstract>Methods: Seventy‐two samples were collected from 18 patients who were suffering from aggressive periodontitis. The data obtained were compared for the two methods.</abstract><abstract>Results: The results obtained with real‐time PCR were different from those obtained with bacterial culture. The detection differences were 3% for A. actinomycetemcomitans, 8.33% for P. intermedia, and 12.5% for F. nucleatum. However, the differences for P. gingivalis and T. forsythia were 51.39% and 36.11%, respectively. No comparison was possible for T. denticola because it cannot be identified in culture. The variations found were the result of the better detection level (102 pathogens) of the PCR probe. Unlike bacterial culture, PCR allows the detection of T. denticola, which does not forming colonies and is oxygen sensitive. For F. nucleatum, T. forsythia and P. gingivalis, the real‐time PCR technique was more sensitive than culture.</abstract><abstract>Conclusion: Good results were obtained with the real‐time PCR technique for the six periopathogens targeted. This method seems to be indicated for its simplicity, rapidity and reproducibility but it cannot analyze data for an antibiotic susceptibility test. The periodontist must therefore choose one of these two methods according to his specific clinical objective: to obtain rapid, specific detection even with weak initial concentrations (but for targeted periopathogens only) or to be non‐specific and analyze the pathological activity with an antibiogram.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans</topic><topic>anaerobic bacterial culture</topic><topic>Fusobacterium nucleatum</topic><topic>microbiological diagnosis</topic><topic>periodontopathogens</topic><topic>Porphyromonas gingivalis</topic><topic>probe detection</topic><topic>real‐time polymerase chain reaction</topic><topic>Prevotella intermedia</topic><topic>Tannerella forsythia</topic><topic>Treponema denticola</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Oral Microbiology and Immunology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0902-0055</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1399-302X</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1399-302X</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">OMI</identifier><part><date>2006</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>21</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>6</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>341</start><end>346</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-RJF5WJGM-T</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1399-302X.2006.00297.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">OMI297</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002F81 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002F81 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:6141400E75E73D6080B72D19A6832F5C774683E0
|texte= Carpegen® real‐time polymerase chain reaction vs. anaerobic culture for periodontal pathogen identification
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |