Premium
Microbiological and Clinical Monitoring of Non‐Localized Juvenile Periodontitis in Young Adults: A Report of 11 Cases
Author(s) -
van Steenbergen T. J. Martijn,
van der Veiden Ubele,
Abbas Frank,
de Graaff Johannes
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.1993.64.1.40
Subject(s) - actinobacillus , clinical attachment loss , porphyromonas gingivalis , prevotella intermedia , periodontitis , medicine , gingival and periodontal pocket , dentistry , juvenile , microbiology and biotechnology , biology , genetics
I t has been shown that patients with localized juvenile Periodontitis (LJP) often harbor Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans in the subgingival area. However, little is known of the oral microflora in non‐LJP juvenile Periodontitis patients with less extensive disease. The purpose of this study was to describe the microflora and clinical parameters of young adults with minor to moderate periodontitis during treatment for a period of 1 year. Eleven patients 15 to 16 years of age were studied. All of them had 4 to 8 mm loss of attachment at minimally one site, but the typical clinical description of localized juvenile periodontitis was an exclusion criterion in this study. Microbiological examination of the deepest periodontal pocket and of the tongue revealed that 6 patients harbored Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and 5 harbored Porphyromonas gingivalis . Almost all subjects showed relatively high proportions of Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus , motile organisms, and spirochetes. On the basis of clinical and microbiological parameters the 11 patients could be assigned to 1 of 2 groups. Six cases had moderate periodontal breakdown with loss of attachment at 7 to 44 sites. All harbored A. actinomycetemcomitans and 5 of them P. gingivalis . These 6 cases responded relatively well to initial treatment despite the continued presence of A. actinomycetemcomitans. The other group consisted of 5 cases with relatively minor periodontal breakdown; i.e, 1 or 2 sites with 4 to 6 mm loss of attachment. Neither A. actinomycetemcomitans nor P. gingivalis was detected in the deepest pocket of these patients. All 5 responded well to initial treatment. It can be hypothesized that the subgingival presence of A. actinomycetemcomitans in non‐LJP patients is not predictive for a poor response to initial treatment. Therefore, recognition and treatment of A. actinomycetemcomitans associated periodontitis, if diagnosed in an early stage, may be possible to treat with conventional mechanical periodontal treatment. It remains to be determined if the presence of A. actinomycetemcomitans in these patients is a risk factor for further breakdown. J Periodontol 1993;64:40–47 .