File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Microbiota associated with residual clefts and neighboring teeth in patients with cleft lip, alveolus, and palate

TitleMicrobiota associated with residual clefts and neighboring teeth in patients with cleft lip, alveolus, and palate
Authors
Issue Date1992
PublisherAllen Press Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://cpcj.allenpress.com
Citation
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 1992, v. 29 n. 5, p. 463-469 How to Cite?
AbstractTwenty patients with residual clefts or pronounced soft tissue grooves, treated for uni- or bilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate were included in this study. Ten patients were recalled for dental prophylaxis at regular intervals, 10 patients were not. One microbiologic sample was obtained from the cleft area and two samples from a tooth adjacent to the cleft (sites adjacent and distant to the cleft). Between the recall and the nonrecall group there were notable differences in the presence of anaerobic Gram- negative organisms. Fusobacterium spp., Prevotella melaninogenica, and P. intermedia were more often found in nonrecall patients. While rarely seen in recall patients, spirochetes and motile rods were a common feature of nonrecall patients. The putative periodontal pathogens Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis were not detected in either group. The differences between the recall and the nonrecall groups were more pronounced when the respective samples from teeth were related to each other than when the samples obtained from the clefts were compared. The cleft flora was less complex irrespective of how good maintenance was and resembled the flora of teeth of well-maintained patients. Samples from clefts were never Wolinella positive, and harbored significantly less Capnocytophaga and Actinomyces viscosus than samples from dental sites.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/153780
ISSN
2010 Impact Factor: 0.77
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.685
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMombelli, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorBragger, Uen_US
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:21:32Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:21:32Z-
dc.date.issued1992en_US
dc.identifier.citationCleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 1992, v. 29 n. 5, p. 463-469en_US
dc.identifier.issn1055-6656en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/153780-
dc.description.abstractTwenty patients with residual clefts or pronounced soft tissue grooves, treated for uni- or bilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate were included in this study. Ten patients were recalled for dental prophylaxis at regular intervals, 10 patients were not. One microbiologic sample was obtained from the cleft area and two samples from a tooth adjacent to the cleft (sites adjacent and distant to the cleft). Between the recall and the nonrecall group there were notable differences in the presence of anaerobic Gram- negative organisms. Fusobacterium spp., Prevotella melaninogenica, and P. intermedia were more often found in nonrecall patients. While rarely seen in recall patients, spirochetes and motile rods were a common feature of nonrecall patients. The putative periodontal pathogens Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis were not detected in either group. The differences between the recall and the nonrecall groups were more pronounced when the respective samples from teeth were related to each other than when the samples obtained from the clefts were compared. The cleft flora was less complex irrespective of how good maintenance was and resembled the flora of teeth of well-maintained patients. Samples from clefts were never Wolinella positive, and harbored significantly less Capnocytophaga and Actinomyces viscosus than samples from dental sites.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherAllen Press Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://cpcj.allenpress.comen_US
dc.relation.ispartofCleft Palate-Craniofacial Journalen_US
dc.subject.meshActinomyces Viscosus - Isolation & Purificationen_US
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshAlveolar Process - Microbiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshCapnocytophaga - Isolation & Purificationen_US
dc.subject.meshCleft Lip - Microbiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshCleft Palate - Microbiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshColony Count, Microbialen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Plaque - Microbiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Prophylaxisen_US
dc.subject.meshEikenella Corrodens - Isolation & Purificationen_US
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshGram-Negative Anaerobic Bacteria - Isolation & Purificationen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subject.meshOral Hygieneen_US
dc.subject.meshPeriodontitis - Prevention & Controlen_US
dc.subject.meshPeriodontium - Microbiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshSpirochaetales - Isolation & Purificationen_US
dc.titleMicrobiota associated with residual clefts and neighboring teeth in patients with cleft lip, alveolus, and palateen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.pmid1472527-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0026756194en_US
dc.identifier.volume29en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.spage463en_US
dc.identifier.epage469en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:A1992JP49600013-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMombelli, A=7006180872en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBragger, U=7005538598en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats