检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:金笑一[1] 杨圣辉[2] 王申五[3] 刘红 张春梅[2]
机构地区:[1]首都医科大学附属北京口腔医院综合科,北京100050 [2]首都医科大学附属北京口腔医学研究所,北京100050 [3]北京医科大学附属人民医院中心实验室
出 处:《中华口腔医学杂志》2000年第1期38-40,共3页Chinese Journal of Stomatology
摘 要:目的 使用聚合酶链反应 (polymerasechainreaction ,PCR)检测龈下菌斑的牙龈卟啉菌 ,并与常规的培养法和间接免疫荧光法相比较。方法 设计纤毛亚单位蛋白基因内的一对引物 ,用PCR对 92个龈下菌斑标本进行扩增 ,与其他两种方法的检出率进行比较。结果 相同的菌斑标本 ,PCR的检出率为 94 6 % ,培养法为 48 9% ,间接免疫荧光法为 6 8 5 % ,前者明显高于后两者 (P <0 0 0 1)。结论 对牙周病致病菌的检测 ,PCR较培养法和间接免疫荧光法具有较高的敏感性。Objective To compare the efficiency of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with cultural method and indirect immunofluorescence(IF) in detection of Porphyromonas gingivalis (P g) in oral plaque samples Methods 92 subgingival plaque samples were collected from patients of three kinds of periodontal disease A program using PCR to detect Fimbrilin gene (Fim A) was designed to detect P g The efficiency of this PCR method was compared with cultural method and IF Results The positive rate of PCR was 94 6%, while that of cultural method and IF was only 48 9% and 68 5% respectively The difference was significant in statistical analysis ( P <0 001) Conclusion PCR is more sensitive than culture method and IF in detecting pathogens of periodontal diseases The study provides a simplified and efficient method for oral clinical use
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.30