Detection of herpetic viruses in gingival crevicular fluid of patients suffering from periodontal diseases: prevalence and effect of treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Although the role of bacteria in the etiology of periodontitis is well established, it has been suggested that herpetic viruses could contribute to the initiation and progression of this disease. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and herpes simplex virus (HSV) in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples obtained from periodontally healthy, gingivitis and periodontitis patients. In addition, the effect of periodontal treatment (scaling and root planing) on the persistence of herpetic viruses was evaluated in a sub-group of patients suffering from chronic periodontitis. METHODS: The presence of viruses in GCF samples was assessed by a nested PCR amplification technique. The persistence of viruses in periodontal sites was evaluated following a scaling and root planing therapy. RESULTS: A statistically significant higher prevalence of HCMV was observed in periodontitis patients as compared to healthy control subjects (35 vs. 8%, respectively; P = 0.0377). A trend for a higher prevalence of HSV was also noted in the periodontitis group, in comparison with healthy control subjects. In addition, a higher prevalence of HCMV was associated with deep periodontal pockets in subjects suffering from periodontitis. In the sub-group of periodontitis patients, periodontal therapy resulted in the elimination (HCMV and EBV) or reduction (HSV) of the herpetic viruses. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the prevalence of HCMV and HSV viruses in GCF is higher in patients suffering from periodontitis compared to periodontally healthy subjects, and that the prevalence of HCMV is higher in deep periodontal pockets. It also brought evidences that periodontal therapy may be associated with virus elimination in diseased sites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".