Detection of Periodontal Markers in Chronic Periodontitis

Åsa Leonhardt1, *, Anette Carlén2, Lisbeth Bengtsson2, Gunnar Dahlén2
1 Student Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Västra Götaland Region, Sweden
2 Department of Oral Microbiology, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 365
Abstract HTML Views: 126
PDF Downloads: 75
Total Views/Downloads: 566
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 162
Abstract HTML Views: 95
PDF Downloads: 64
Total Views/Downloads: 321

Creative Commons License
© Leonhardt et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Public Dental Health Service Student clinic Institute of Odontology Box 7163 402 33 Gothenburg Sweden; Tel: +46 31 786 3220; Fax: +46 31 786 3100; E-mail:


The aim was to compare the detection frequency of periodontopathogens by using the Pado Test 4.5 and checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization technique in chronic periodontitis patients.

Thirty patients with chronic periodontitis were tested cross-sectionally with DNA/RNA oligogenomic probe method (IAI Pado Test 4.5) and DNA/DNA whole genomic probe (checkerboard) method. Samples were taken by two paper points at the deepest site in each of the four quadrants and pooled into one sample for each of the two methods. The samples were sent to the two laboratories (IAI, Zuchwil, Switzerland, and Oral Microbiology Laboratory, University of Gothenburg, Sweden) and were analyzed in a routine setting for the presence and amount of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia and Treponema denticola.

While Pado Test 4.5 detected the four periodontal pathogens in 11 (36.7%) of the patients, the checkerboard method showed presence in all patients (100%) using the lower score (Score 1 corresponding to 104 bacterial cells) and 16 (53.3%) using a higher treshold (score 3 corresponding to between >105 and 106 cells).

The results of the present study showed low agreement for a positive microbiological outcome using the two diagnostic methods. It was also concluded that microbiological analysis in practice should include a larger number of bacterial species to better serve as markers for a diseased associated flora in chronic periodontitis cases.

Keywords: Chronic periodontitis, Microbiological diagnostic methods, PadoTest 4.5, Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola.