ObjectiveThe current manuscript aims to determine the prevalence, duration and bacterial diversity of bacteraemia following dental extractions using conventional culture-dependent methods and 16S rDNA pyrosequencing.MethodsThe study group included 8 patients undergoing dental extractions under general anaesthesia. Peripheral venous blood samples were collected at baseline, 30 seconds and 15 minutes after the dental extractions. Blood samples were analysed for bacteraemia applying conventional microbiological cultures under aerobic and anaerobic conditions as well as pyrosequencing using universal bacterial primers that target the 16S ribosomal DNA gene.ResultsTransient bacteremia was detected by culture-based methods in one sample at baseline time, in eight samples at 30 seconds, and in six samples at 15 minutes after surgical procedure; whereas bacteraemia was detected only in five blood samples at 30 seconds after dental extraction by using pyrosequencing. By applying conventional microbiological methods, a single microbial species was detected in six patients, and Streptococcus viridans was the most frequently cultured identified bacterium. By using pyrosequencing approaches however, the estimated blood microbial diversity after dental extractions was 13.4±1.7 bacterial families and 22.8±1.1 genera per sample.ConclusionThe application of 16S rDNA pyrosequencing underestimated the prevalence and duration of bacteraemia following dental extractions, presumably due to not reaching the minimum DNA required for PCR amplification. However, this molecular technique, unlike conventional culture-dependent methods, revealed an extraordinarily high bacterial diversity of post-extraction bacteraemia. We propose that microorganisms recovered by culture may be only the tip of an iceberg of a really diverse microbiota whose viability and potential pathogenicity should be further studied.
BackgroundThe prevalence and amounts of periodontal pathogens detected in bacteraemia samples after tooth brushing-induced by means of four diagnostic technique, three based on culture and one in a molecular-based technique, have been compared in this study.Material and MethodsBlood samples were collected from thirty-six subjects with different periodontal status (17 were healthy, 10 with gingivitis and 9 with periodontitis) at baseline and 2 minutes after tooth brushing. Each sample was analyzed by three culture-based methods [direct anaerobic culturing (DAC), hemo-culture (BACTEC), and lysis-centrifugation (LC)] and one molecular-based technique [quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)]. With culture any bacterial isolate was detected and quantified, while with qPCR only Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans were detected and quantified. Descriptive analyses, ANOVA and Chi-squared tests, were performed.ResultsNeither BACTEC nor qPCR detected any type of bacteria in the blood samples. Only LC (2.7%) and DAC (8.3%) detected bacteraemia, although not in the same patients. Fusobacterium nucleatum was the most frequently detected bacterial species.ConclusionsThe disparity in the results when the same samples were analyzed with four different microbiological detection methods highlights the need for a proper validation of the methodology to detect periodontal pathogens in bacteraemia samples, mainly when the presence of periodontal pathogens in blood samples after tooth brushing was very seldom.
Key words:Bacteraemia, periodontitis, culture, PCR, tooth brushing.
This study showed that amlodipine and nifedipine GITS reduce blood pressure to about the same extent during chronic treatment. In the case of compliance failure, such as missing one or two doses, amlodipine maintained significant and important antihypertensive effect with the trough-to-peak ratio still over 50% 72h after the last active dose. On the other hand, the coverage of nifedipine GITS was limited to about 36h after the last active dose.
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.