Clinical and technical considerations in the analysis of gingival crevicular fluid

Abstract

Despite the technical challenges involved when collecting, processing and analyzing gingival crevicular fluid samples, research using gingival crevicular fluid has, and will continue to play, a fundamental role in expanding our understanding of periodontal pathogenesis and healing outcomes following treatment. A review of the literature, however, clearly demonstrates that there is considerable variation in the methods used for collection, processing and analysis of gingival crevicular fluid samples by different research groups around the world. Inconsistent or inadequate reporting impairs interpretation of results, prevents accurate comparison of data between studies and potentially limits the conclusions that can be made from a larger body of evidence. The precise methods used for collection and analysis of gingival crevicular fluid (including calibration studies required before definitive clinical studies) should be reported in detail, either in the methods section of published papers or as an online supplementary file, so that other researchers may reproduce the methodology. Only with clear and transparent reporting will the full impact of future gingival crevicular fluid research be realized. This paper discusses the complexities of gingival crevicular fluid collection and analysis and provides guidance to researchers working in this field.

Azurocidin in gingival crevicular fluid as a potential biomarker of chronic periodontitis

“…Storing and handling of GCF samples are also known to affect results of the assays. In the current study, it was chosen to immediately freeze‐dry samples in liquid nitrogen and store at −80°C, for a maximum period of 6 months, a process known to ensure absence of degradation . No information for storage of samples is provided by Leppilahti et al, (2014) while Choi et al (2011) report storage of GCF samples at −70°C.…”

Clastic cells in orthodontic treatment: Translational challenges and recent advances

“…Gingival crevicular fluid initially appears to be a more efficient means of fluid analysis compared to saliva because its proteomic composition is far less complex and provides a clearer picture of localized biological processes. Nevertheless, significant limitations also exist . A major problem is that a limited amount of GCF (1‐5 μL) can be obtained from a single site.…”

“…Given that liquid biopsies are usually performed using millilitres of biofluids (serum, urine, saliva), this represents a formidable challenge. Therefore, studies have been inconclusive due to several challenges in obtaining adequate amounts of non‐contaminated GCF and analysing the molecules expressed at low levels within it …”

“…Multiple techniques have been developed to collect GCF and each has its advantages and disadvantages . Amongst the most popular collection methods are micropipette, or capillary tubing, and absorbent filter paper strips . The micropipette collection method is carried out by holding a micropipette at the entrance of the gingival crevice for an extended period of time (5‐30 minutes) and allowing GCF to migrate into the tube .…”

“…An additional drawback is the difficulty of removing the sample from the micropipette without introducing contaminants. Collection of GCF via filter paper is conducted by inserting the strip 1‐2 mm into the gingival sulcus for 30‐60 seconds . In comparison to collection with capillary tubing, collection with paper strips is much faster but complete elution of GCF components from the strip can be difficult.…”