2001
DOI: 10.1006/anae.2001.0400
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PCR analysis of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola andFusobacterium nucleatum in middle ear effusion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As our study population was similar to that study, we thought it was important to detect T. denticola which was also previously detected in MEE samples 8. In our current study, T. denticola was detected from only four (20%) saliva samples and one (5%) nasopharyngeal secretion sample, while it was not detected in any middle ear effusion sample.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As our study population was similar to that study, we thought it was important to detect T. denticola which was also previously detected in MEE samples 8. In our current study, T. denticola was detected from only four (20%) saliva samples and one (5%) nasopharyngeal secretion sample, while it was not detected in any middle ear effusion sample.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…In our previous study, bacterial DNA were determined from 42 % of the middle ear effusion (MEE) samples, which, 37 % of them were positive for Fusobacterium nucleatum and one of them was positive for both F. nucleatum and Treponema denticola 8. T. denticola was found to be the second most common periodontal pathogen among the periodontally healthy children 9.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1 lists the species‐specific PCR primers chosen based on previously published sequences 27,32 . The PCR was performed according to a previously described protocol 33 . PCR mix contained 1 mM of each primer, 1.5 mM MgCl 2 , 200 mM of deoxyribonucleotide triphosphate, §§ 1× Taq polymerase buffer, ‖‖ 1.25 units of Taq DNA polymerase, and 10 ml of template DNA in 50‐μl reaction volume.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is mainly because conventional identification of anaerobes is a complicated, expensive and time‐consuming process and it is often not reliable, because it is based on outdated taxonomy (Song 2005). Conversely, genetic‐based methods are among the most sensitive and specific tools for identifying bacteria especially with clinical purposes (Bolstad and Jensen 1993; Külekçi et al. 2001; Haraldsson et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Isolated DNA was used as template for Fus. nucleatum identification by employing primers targeting 16S rRNA gene sequences (Külekçi et al. 2001).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%