1887

Abstract

Molecular methods have been used recently to investigate the bacteria encountered in human endodontic infections. The aim of the present study was to compare the ability of a 16S rDNA-based PCR assay and checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridisation in detecting , and directly from clinical samples. Specimens were obtained from 50 cases of endodontic infections and the presence of the target species was investigated by whole genomic DNA probes and checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridisation or taxon-specific oligonucleotides with PCR assay. Prevalence of the target species was based on data obtained by each method. The sensitivity and specificity of each molecular method was compared with the data generated by the other method as the reference – a value of 1.0 representing total agreement with the chosen standard. The methods were also compared with regard to the prevalence values for each target species. Regardless of the detection method used, and were the most prevalent species. If the checkerboard data for these four species were used as the reference, PCR detection sensitivities ranged from 0.53 to 1.0, and specificities from 0.5 to 0.88, depending on the target bacterial species. When PCR data for the same species were used as the reference, the detection sensitivities for the checkerboard method ranged from 0.17 to 0.73, and specificities from 0.75 to 1.0. Accuracy values ranged from 0.6 to 0.74. On the whole, matching results between the two molecular methods ranged from 60% to 97.5%, depending on the target species. The major discrepancies between the methods comprised a number of PCR-positive but checkerboard-negative results. Significantly higher prevalence figures for and were observed after PCR assessment. There was no further significant difference between the methods with regard to detection of the other target species.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/0022-1317-51-12-1090
2002-12-01
2019-11-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/51/12/1090.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/0022-1317-51-12-1090&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Sundqvist G. Associations between microbial species in dental root canal infections. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1992;; 7: 257–262.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Souto R, Uzeda M, Colombo AP. Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization analysis of endodontic infections. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;; 89: 744–748.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Gomes BPFA, Lilley JD, Drucker DB. Clinical significance of dental root canal microflora. J Dent 1996;; 24: 47–55.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Pitt TL, Saunders NA. Molecular bacteriology: a diagnostic tool for the millennium. J Clin Pathol 2000;; 53: 71–75.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Whelen AC, Persing DH. The role of nucleic acid amplification and detection in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Annu Rev Microbiol 1996;; 50: 349–373.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Socransky SS, Smith C, Martin L, Paster BJ, Dewhirst FE, Levin AE. `‘Checkerboard’’ DNA-DNA hybridization. Biotechniques 1994;; 17: 788–792.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, Cugini MA, Smith C, Kent RL. Microbial complexes in subgingival plaque. J Clin Periodontol 1998;; 25: 134–144.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ximénez-Fyvie LA, Haffajee AD, Socransky SS. Microbial composition of supra- and subgingival plaque in subjects with adult periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 2000;; 27: 722–732.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Conrads G, Gharbia SE, Gulabivala K, Lampert F, Shah HN. The use of a 16S rDNA PCR for the detection of endodontopathogenic bacteria. J Endod 1997;; 23: 433–438.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gatti JJ, Dobeck JM, Smith C, White RR, Socransky SS, Skobe Z. Bacteria of asymptomatic periradicular endodontic lesions identified by DNA-DNA hybridization. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000;; 16: 197–204.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hashimura T, Sato M, Hoshino E. Detection of Slackia exigua, Mogibacterium timidum and Eubacterium saphenum from pulpal and periradicular samples using the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) method. Int Endod J 2001;; 34: 463–470.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jung I-Y, Choi B-K, Kum K-Y.et al. Identification of oral spirochetes at the species level and their association with other bacteria in endodontic infections. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;; 92: 329–334.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Machado de Oliveira JC, Siqueira JF, Alves GB, Hirata R, Andrade AFB. Detection of Porphyromonas endodontalis in infected root canals by 16S rRNA gene-directed polymerase chain reaction. J Endod 2000;; 26: 729–732.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Riggio MP, Lennon A, Smith A. Detection of Peptostreptococcus micros DNA in clinical samples by PCR. J Med Microbiol 2001;; 50: 249–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, Santos KR, Coelho AM. "Red complex" (Bacteroides forsythus, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Treponema denticola) in endodontic infections: a molecular approach. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;; 91: 468–471.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Favieri A, Santos KRN. Detection of Treponema denticola in endodontic infections by 16S rRNA gene-directed polymerase chain reaction. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2000;; 15: 335–337.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Oliveira JCM, Santos KRN. Detection of putative oral pathogens in acute periradicular abscesses by 16S rDNA-directed polymerase chain reaction. J Endod 2001;; 27: 164–167.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Oliveira JCM, Santos KRN. Molecular detection of black-pigmented bacteria in infections of endodontic origin. J Endod 2001;; 27: 563–566.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sunde PT, Tronstad L, Eribe ER, Lind PO, Olsen I. Assessment of periradicular microbiota by DNA-DNA hybridization. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000;; 16: 191–196.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Xia T, Baumgartner JC, David LL. Isolation and identification of Prevotella tannerae from endodontic infections. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2000;; 15: 273–275.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ashimoto A, Chen C, Bakker I, Slots J. Polymerase chain reaction detection of 8 putative periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque of gingivitis and advanced periodontitis lesions. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1996;; 11: 266–273.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Papapanou PN, Madianos PN, Dahlén G, Sandros J. `‘Checkerboard’’ versus culture: a comparison between two methods for identification of subgingival microbiota. Eur J Oral Sci 1997;; 105: 389–396.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Smith GL, Socransky SS, Smith CM. Non-isotopic DNA probes for the identification of subgingival microorganisms. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1989;; 4: 41–46.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Loesche WJ. DNA probe and enzyme analysis in periodontal diagnostics. J Periodontol 1992;; 63 12 Suppl: 1102–1109.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Loesche WJ, Lopatin DE, Stoll J, van Poperin N, Hujoel PP. Comparison of various detection methods for periodontopathic bacteria: can culture be considered the primary reference standard? J Clin Microbiol 1992;; 30: 418–426.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Smith GLF, Socransky SS, Smith CM. Rapid method for the purification of DNA from subgingival microorganisms. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1989;; 4: 47–51.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Feinberg AP, Vogelstein B. A technique for radiolabeling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments to high specific activity. Anal Biochem 1983;; 132: 6–13.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Tran T, Flynn MJ, Chen C, Slots J. Porphyromonas endodontalis in subgingival plaque. Clin Infect Dis 1997;; 25 Suppl 2: S222–S223.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Chen C, Slots J. Microbiological tests for Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis. Periodontol 2000 1999;; 20: 53–64.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Melvin WL, Assad DA, Miller GA, Gher ME, Simonson L, York AK. Comparison of DNA probe and ELISA microbial analysis methods and their association with adult periodontitis. J Periodontol 1994;; 65: 576–582.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/0022-1317-51-12-1090
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/0022-1317-51-12-1090
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error