Background. Several studies in the last decades have focused on finding a precise method for the diagnosis of periodontal disease in its early stages. Aim. To evaluate from current scientific literature the most common and precise method for gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) sample collection, biomarker analytical methods, and the variability of biomarker quantification, even when using the same analytical technique. Methodology. An electronic search was conducted on in vivo studies that presented clinical data on techniques used for GCF collection and biomarker analysis. Results. The results showed that 71.1%, 24.7%, and 4.1% of the studies used absorption, microcapillary, and washing techniques, respectively, in their gingival crevicular fluid collection. 73.1% of the researchers analyzed their samples by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). 22.6%, 19.5%, and 18.5% of the researchers included interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), respectively, in their studies as biomarkers for periodontal disease. Conclusion. IL-1β can be considered among the most common biomarkers that give precise results and can be used as an indicator of periodontal disease progression. Furthermore, paper strips are the most convenient and accurate method for gingival crevicular fluid collection, while enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay can be considered the most conventional method for the diagnosis of biofluids.
The association between diabetes mellitus and chronic periodontal disease has long been established. Most of the researches linking these two very common chronic diseases were based on type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic periodontal disease. However, this study was conducted to investigate the association between type 1 diabetes and chronic periodontal disease in Malaysian subjects. Forty-one Malaysian subjects, of which 20 subjects were type 1 diabetics and with chronic periodontal disease (test group) and 21 subjects with only chronic periodontal disease (control group), were included in the study. Periodontal parameters and plaque samples for microbiological evaluation were done at baseline, 2 and 3 months after nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Blood samples were taken from only the test group and evaluated for HbA1c at baseline and 3 months after periodontal therapy. There were no statistically significant difference in periodontal parameters between groups (P>0.05) and no significant improvement in the level of HbA1c in the test group. Microbiological studies indicated that there were significant reductions in the levels of the tested pathogens in both groups. The results of our study were similar to the findings of several other studies that had been done previously.