Overall, there was a relatively good agreement for the results of paper point and curet sampling. Thus, both techniques seem to be suitable for microbiological diagnostics.
The present study compared the recovery of six periodontal pathogens by paper point samples from two different aspects of periodontal lesions by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Twenty patients with untreated chronic periodontitis were randomized into two groups. Before subgingival instrumentation and after 10 weeks samples in group A were taken first with a paper point half length (HP) of the probing depth, then with a paper point full length (FP) at the same site. In group B sampling sequence was reversed. Analysis by real-time PCR enabled quantification of six bacteria as well as total bacterial count (TBC). Statistical analysis included t test, Kappa, and Spearman's correlations. Higher TBC could be harvested by use of FP than by HP (mean of differences of ln-transformed counts before therapy: -0.791, CI [-1.515, -0.068], SD 0.770, p = 0.034; after therapy: -0.563, CI [-1.151, 0.024], SD 0.625, p = 0.059). The plaque composition regarding total target pathogens was similar for both samples. Both, for TBC as well as for single target bacteria a strong positive correlation was found between HP and FP (Kappa, Spearman correlation: Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans 0.807, 0.778; Fusobacterium nucleatum 0.573, 0.772; Porphyromonas gingivalis 0.733, 0.824; Prevotella intermedia 0.480, 0.756; Treponema denticola 0.807, 0.814; and Tannerella forsythia 0.692, 0.695). The recovery of target pathogens was similar following sampling at various depths of the periodontal lesion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.