Comparison of real-time polymerase chain reaction and DNA-strip technology in microbiological evaluation of periodontitis treatment

The impact of a semiquantitative commercially available test based on DNA-strip technology (microIDent®, Hain Lifescience, Nehren, Germany) on diagnosis and treatment of severe chronic periodontitis of 25 periodontitis patients was evaluated in comparison with a quantitative in-house real-time PCR. Subgingival plaque samples were collected at baseline as well as at 3, 6, and 12 months later. After extracting DNA, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, and several other periodontopathogens were determined by both methods. The results obtained by DNA-strip technology were analyzed semiquantitatively and additionally quantitatively by densitometry. The results for the 4 major periodontopathogenic bacterial species correlated significantly between the 2 methods. Samples detecting a high bacterial load by one method and negative by the other were always found in less than 2% of the total samples. Both technologies showed the impact of treatment on microflora. Especially the semiquantitative DNA-strip technology clearly analyzed the different loads of periodontopathogens after therapy and is useful in microbial diagnostics for patients in dental practices.

Comparison of three strip-type tests and two laboratory methods for salivary buffering analysis

This study evaluated the correlation between three strip-type, colorimetric tests and two laboratory methods with respect to the analysis of salivary buffering. The strip-type tests were saliva-check buffer, Dentobuff strip and CRT(®) Buffer test. The laboratory methods included Ericsson's laboratory method and a monotone acid/base titration to create a reference scale for the salivary titratable acidity. Additionally, defined buffer solutions were prepared and tested to simulate the carbonate, phosphate and protein buffer systems of saliva. The correlation between the methods was analysed by the Spearman's rank test. Disagreement was detected between buffering capacity values obtained with three strip-type tests that was more pronounced in case of saliva samples with medium and low buffering capacities. All strip-type tests were able to assign the hydrogencarbonate, di-hydrogenphosphate and 0.1% protein buffer solutions to the correct buffer categories. However, at 0.6% total protein concentrations, none of the test systems worked accurately. Improvements are necessary for strip-type tests because of certain disagreement with the Ericsson's laboratory method and dependence on the protein content of saliva.

Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: how precisely can we strip teeth?

INTRODUCTION In this in-vitro study, we aimed to investigate the predictability of the expected amount of stripping using 3 common stripping devices on premolars. METHODS One hundred eighty extracted premolars were mounted and aligned in silicone. Tooth mobility was tested with Periotest (Medizintechnik Gulden, Modautal, Germany) (8.3 ± 2.8 units). The selected methods for interproximal enamel reduction were hand-pulled strips (Horico, Hapf Ringleb & Company, Berlin, Germany), oscillating segmental disks (O-drive-OD 30; KaVo Dental, Biberach, Germany), and motor-driven abrasive strips (Orthofile; SDC Switzerland, Lugano-Grancia, Switzerland). With each device, the operator intended to strip 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mm on the mesial side of 15 teeth. The teeth were scanned before and after stripping with a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Superposition and measurement of stripped enamel on the most mesial point of the tooth were conducted with Viewbox software (dHal Software, Kifissia, Greece). The Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied; statistical significance was set at alpha ≤ 0.05. RESULTS Large variations between the intended and the actual amounts of stripped enamel, and between stripping procedures, were observed. Significant differences were found at 0.1 mm of intended stripping (P ≤ 0.05) for the hand-pulled method and at 0.4 mm of intended stripping (P ≤ 0.001 to P = 0.05) for all methods. For all scenarios of enamel reduction, the actual amount of stripping was less than the predetermined and expected amount of stripping. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis showed no significant differences between the 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS There were variations in the stripped amounts of enamel, and the stripping technique did not appear to be a significant predictor of the actual amount of enamel reduction. In most cases, actual stripping was less than the intended amount of enamel reduction.

Functional and Evolutionary Analysis of the CASPARIAN STRIP MEMBRANE DOMAIN PROTEIN Family

CASPARIAN STRIP MEMBRANE DOMAIN PROTEINS (CASPs) are four-membrane-span proteins that mediate the deposition of Casparian strips in the endodermis by recruiting the lignin polymerization machinery. CASPs show high stability in their membrane domain, which presents all the hallmarks of a membrane scaffold. Here, we characterized the large family of CASP-like (CASPL) proteins. CASPLs were found in all major divisions of land plants as well as in green algae; homologs outside of the plant kingdom were identified as members of the MARVEL protein family. When ectopically expressed in the endodermis, most CASPLs were able to integrate the CASP membrane domain, which suggests that CASPLs share with CASPs the propensity to form transmembrane scaffolds. Extracellular loops are not necessary for generating the scaffold, since CASP1 was still able to localize correctly when either one of the extracellular loops was deleted. The CASP first extracellular loop was found conserved in euphyllophytes but absent in plants lacking Casparian strips, an observation that may contribute to the study of Casparian strip and root evolution. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), CASPL showed specific expression in a variety of cell types, such as trichomes, abscission zone cells, peripheral root cap cells, and xylem pole pericycle cells.