Aim. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether there was a difference in antimicrobial effect between the PRP of healthy volunteers and that of patients with chronic periodontitis againstP. gingivalis,which was fresh cultured from subgingival plaque.Methods. Subgingival plaque of patients with moderate and severe chronic periodontitis was collected to isolateP. gingivalis. The PRP of four individuals with healthy periodontium and four patients with moderate and severe periodontitis were collected with a specific kit using a two-centrifuge procedure, and then, the antibacterial properties againstP. gingivaliswere tested, through their minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), adhesion resistance assay, and biofilm susceptibility assay.Results.P. gingivaliswas successfully isolated from the subgingival plaque of the 21st patient. The round, smooth, and black colony appeared in the agar disk after 7–10 days of incubation under anaerobic conditions. Bacterial identification was performed by MALDI-TOF and confirmed by PCR. All PRP samples tested showed the ability to inhibitP. gingivalisgrowth. The MIC value (expressed as fraction of PRP) was 1/2, and PRP preventedP. gingivalisattachment on the disk surface. However, PRP did not have a strong effect on the suppression ofP. gingivalisbiofilm.Conclusion. PRP of individuals with healthy periodontium and chronic periodontitis patients showed antibacterial properties againstP. gingivalis.This material can become an adjunct to periodontal treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pham et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: