Premium
The combined use of salivary biomarkers and clinical parameters to predict the outcome of scaling and root planing: A cohort study
Author(s) -
Liu Yiying,
Duan Dingyu,
Ma Rui,
Ding Yi,
Xu Yi,
Zhou Xuedong,
Zhao Lei,
Xu Xin
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/jcpe.13367
Subject(s) - tannerella forsythia , aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans , scaling and root planing , area under the curve , medicine , clinical attachment loss , prevotella intermedia , periodontitis , dentistry , saliva , gastroenterology , porphyromonas gingivalis , chronic periodontitis , pathology , honeysuckle , alternative medicine , traditional chinese medicine
Aim To explore the application of the combined use of baseline salivary biomarkers and clinical parameters in predicting the outcome of scaling and root planing (SRP). Materials and methods Forty patients with advanced periodontitis were included. Baseline saliva samples were analysed for interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β), matrix metalloproteinase‐8 and the loads of Porphyromonas gingivalis , Prevotella intermedia , Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Tannerella forsythia . After SRP, pocket closure and further attachment loss at 6 months post‐treatment were chosen as outcome variables. Models to predict the outcomes were established by generalized estimating equations. Results The combined use of baseline clinical attachment level (CAL), site location and IL‐1β (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.764) better predicted pocket closure than probing depth (AUC = 0.672), CAL (AUC = 0.679), site location (AUC = 0.654) or IL‐1β (AUC = 0.579) alone. The combination of site location, tooth loss, percentage of deep pockets, detection of A. actinomycetemcomitans and T. forsythia load (AUC = 0.842) better predicted further clinical attachment loss than site location (AUC = 0.715), tooth loss (AUC = 0.530), percentage of deep pockets (AUC = 0.659) or T. forsythia load (AUC = 0.647) alone. Conclusion The combination of baseline salivary biomarkers and clinical parameters better predicted SRP outcomes than each alone. The current study indicates the possible usefulness of salivary biomarkers in addition to tooth‐related parameters in predicting SRP outcomes.