Using Salivary Nitrite and Nitrate Levels as a Biomarker for Drug-Induced Gingival Overgrowth.

Erkan Sukuroglu,Güliz N Güncü,Kamer Kilinc,Feriha Caglayan

doi:10.3389/fcimb.2015.00087

Erkan Sukuroglu, Güliz N Güncü + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2015.00087

Copy DOI

Abstract

Aim: Drug-induced gingival overgrowth has a multifactorial nature and the pathogenesis is still uncertain. It has been suggested that Nitric Oxide (NO) might play a role in the pathogenesis of drug-induced gingival overgrowth due to the contribution of NO to immune response and matrix degradation. NO levels in biological fluids have been used as a diagnostic biomarker in many diseases. The aim of this study is to determine whether NO levels in plasma, saliva, and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) can serve as a potential biomarker for the evaluation of drug-induced gingival overgrowth risk.Materials and Methods: A total of 104 patients, receiving cyclosporine A (n = 35), phenytoin (n = 25), nifedipine (n = 26), or diltiazem (n = 18) participated in the study. The amount of gingival overgrowth was evaluated with two indices and was given as percentage. Periodontal clinical parameters including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), gingival bleeding time index (GBTI), and probing depth (PD) were also assessed. Saliva, GCF, and plasma samples were obtained from each participants. Nitrite and nitrate levels in saliva, GCF, and plasma were analyzed by Griess reagent.Results: Salivary nitrite and nitrate levels in responders were significantly higher than those in non-responders in only phenytoin group (p < 0.05). Nitrite and nitrate levels of gingival crevicular fluid and plasma did not significantly differ between responders and non-responders in all study groups (p > 0.05). Salivary nitrite levels exhibited a significant correlation with PD, GBTI, severity of gingival overgrowth (%GO), and GCF volume (p < 0.05). Additionally, a strong positive correlation was detected between saliva and plasma nitrate levels (p < 0.005). However, both nitrite and nitrate levels in GCF and plasma demonstrated no significant correlation with clinical parameters, GO severity, and GCF volume (p > 0.05).Conclusion: Salivary nitrite and nitrate levels could be used as periodontal disease biomarkers in phenytoin induced gingival overgrowth, and that saliva seems to have a better diagnostic potential than GCF and plasma for the evaluation of drug-induced gingival overgrowth risk. However, when all drug groups were considered, saliva nitrite and nitrate levels could not be used as a biomarker for drug-induced gingival overgrowth.

Highlights

Drug-induced gingival overgrowth is a well-known side effect of anticonvulsant phenytoin, immunosupressant cyclosporine A (CsA), and antihypertensive calcium channel blockers
To examine the role of Nitric oxide (NO) in the pathogenesis of drug-induced gingival overgrowth and to determine whether NO levels in plasma, saliva, and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) can serve as a potential biomarker for the evaluation of drug-induced gingival overgrowth risk, nitrite and nitrate levels in saliva, GCF, and plasma were evaluated in patients receiving either CsA, phenytoin, nifedipine, or diltiazem therapy
The results of the present study demonstrated a significant difference in salivary nitrite and nitrate levels between responders and non-responders in phenytoin group

Summary

Introduction

Drug-induced gingival overgrowth is a well-known side effect of anticonvulsant phenytoin, immunosupressant cyclosporine A (CsA), and antihypertensive calcium channel blockers. The prevalence rate of gingival overgrowth is about 50% for phenytoin (Güncü et al, 2006) and 25–30% for CsA (Boltchi et al, 1999) This prevalence rate in patients treated with calcium channel blockers varies widely from 10 to 50% (Ellis et al, 1999; Güncü et al, 2007). Many risk factors including poor plaque control, gender, age of the patient, drug dosage, pharmacokinetic variables, and genetic predisposition have been identified in a number of studies, but it is not possible to determine the patients at high risk for developing gingival overgrowth (Seymour et al, 2000)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion