Evidence Hub

Salivary Biomarker Panel That Identifies Periodontitis in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of a Cross-Sectional Study

Craig S. Miller, Qi Yan, S. Kirakodu, J. Ebersole, X. D. Zhang

Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2025

28 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

AIM

This secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study tested the hypothesis that a salivary biomarker panel (i.e., consisting of 2-6 features) could accurately identify periodontitis in persons with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) compared with non-periodontitis in systemically healthy persons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Salivary concentrations of 12 protein biomarkers and 14 oral microbiome species were evaluated by immunoassays and 16S rRNA sequencing, respectively, from 28 systemically healthy non-periodontitis adults and 28 T2DM patients with periodontitis. Data were analysed for the identification of periodontitis from non-periodontitis using 5-fold cross-validation logistic regression, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and odds ratios.

RESULTS

Bacteria showed better predictive value than individual salivary proteins. Two bacteria (Porphyromonas gingivalis and Mycoplasma faucium) yielded specificities > 90%, Prevotella species yielded high sensitivity (86%) and Treponema socranskii demonstrated the top area under the curve (AUC) (0.81). A salivary panel consisting of bacteria (Selenomonas sputigena, P. gingivalis, Prevotella nigrescens, Pr. dentalis) and protein ratios (prostaglandin E2/tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 or macrophage inflammatory protein-1α/tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1) produced robust diagnostic accuracy (95%) and precision (96.6%) for the detection of periodontitis in T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

A salivary panel using bacteria and ratios of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 28 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free