Ability of matrix metalloproteinase‐8 biosensor, IFMA, and ELISA immunoassays to differentiate between periodontal health, gingivitis, and periodontitis. (19th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Umeizudike, Kehinde Adesola; Lähteenmäki, Hanna; Räisänen, Ismo T; Taylor, John J; Preshaw, Philip M; Bissett, Susan M; Tervahartiala, Taina; O Nwhator, Solomon; Pärnänen, Pirjo; Sorsa, Timo
• Is Part Of: Journal of periodontal research. Volume 57:Number 3(2022)
• Page Start: 558
• Page End: 567
• Publication Date: 2022-03-19
• Subjects: active/total matrix metalloproteinase‐8; saliva -- biosensor -- periodontal disease; Periodontics -- Periodicals; 617.632
• DOI: 10.1111/jre.12985
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-3484

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic utility of an MMP‐8 biosensor assay in differentiating periodontal health from gingivitis and periodontitis and compare it with an established time‐resolved immunofluorescence assay (IFMA) and enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Background: Currently available antibody‐based assays display a wide variability in their ability to accurately measure matrix metalloproteinase‐8 (MMP‐8) levels in saliva. Methods: Salivary MMP‐8 levels were analyzed in 189 systemically healthy participants using an antibody‐based biosensor prototype that operates using a surface acoustic wave technology and compared with IFMA and ELISA antibody assays. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: periodontal health (59), gingivitis (63), and periodontitis (67). A sub‐population of participants ( n = 20) with periodontitis received periodontal treatment and were monitored for 6 months. Results: All the assays demonstrated significantly higher salivary MMP‐8 concentrations in participants with periodontitis versus gingivitis, periodontitis versus health, and gingivitis versus health (all p < .05). The biosensor data demonstrated significant correlations with IFMA ( r = .354, p < .001) and ELISA ( r = .681, p < .001). Significant reductions in salivary MMP‐8 concentrations were detected by the biosensor ( p = .030) and IFMA ( p = .002) in participants with periodontitis 6 months after non‐surgical periodontal treatment. IFMA had the best sensitivity (89.2%) for detecting periodontitis and gingivitis versus health and 96.6% for detecting periodontitis versus health and gingivitis. The biosensor had an AUC value of 0.81 and diagnostic accuracy of 74.2% for differentiating periodontitis and gingivitis from health; an AUC value of 0.86 and diagnostic accuracy of 82.8% for periodontitis versus health and gingivitis. Conclusions: The biosensor, IFMA, and ELISA assays differentiated between periodontal health, gingivitis, and periodontitis based on salivary MMP‐8 levels. Only the biosensor and, particularly, IFMA identified an effect of periodontal treatment in the participants with periodontitis. Our findings support the potential utility of salivary oral fluid aMMP‐8‐based point‐of‐care technology in the future of periodontal diagnostics.