Porphyromonas gingivalis may interfere with conception in women

Figures & data

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study subjects (n = 256) divided by the outcome (did or did not become pregnant)

		Became pregnant (n = 205)	Did not become pregnant (n = 51)	p-Value
Age, median (IQR)		28 (7.50)	31 (7.00)	0.043^d
CRP (mg/L), median (IQR)		0.78 (1.29)	0.95 (1.72)	0.039^d
No. of cigarettes per day, median (IQR)		0 (0)	0 [1]	0.015^d
Saliva secretion (mL/2 min), median (IQR)		2.40 (1.45)	2.00 (1.30)	0.134^d
No. of teeth, median (IQR)		28 (1)	28 (1)	0.331^d
No. of caries teeth, median (IQR)		0 (1)	0 (1)	0.160^d
No. of periodontal pockets (if pockets), median (IQR)^a		3 (5)	2 (5)	0.230^d
VP (%)		10.70 (14.70)	10.40 (12.50)	0.118^d
BOP (%)		10.71 (14.42)	8.64 (13.74)	0.544^d
Diabetes, n (%)		0 (0)	0 (0)	–
Hormonal medication or infertility treatment, n (%)		11 (5.5)	5 (10.2)	0.233^e
Has delivered previously, n (%)		74 (37.2)	11 (22.4)	0.052^e
Education level, n (%)^b	Low	53 (26.8)	19 (39.6)	0.068^e
	Medium	87 (43.9)	22 (45.8)
	High	58 (29.3)	7 (14.6)
Current smokers, n (%)		28 (13.7)	14 (27.5)	0.017^e
Has smoked ≥6 years, n (%)		22 (10.7)	13 (25.5)	0.006^e
Smokes ≥6 cigarettes per day, n (%)		17 (8.3)	10 (19.6)	0.019^e
BV positive, n (%)		41 (20.0)	14 (15.7)	0.246^e
PAL, n (%)		24 (11.7)	8 (15.7)	0.442^e
Periodontal pockets, n (%)^c		38 (18.5)	7 (13.7)	0.419^e
BOP ≥15%, n (%)		66 (32.2)	16 (31.4)	0.910^e

p-Values <0.05 are considered significant (shown in bold).

^aPeriodontal pockets of ≥4 mm.

^bEducation level: low – junior high school or vocational school; medium – college, polytechnic, or a higher vocational institute; or high – academic university. Ten students were excluded because their education level was not known.

^cMore than one periodontal pocket of ≥4 mm.

^dNon-parametric Mann–Whitney U two independent samples test.

^eChi-square test.

IQR, interquartile range; CRP, C-reactive protein; VP, visible plaque measured from six sites of teeth; BOP, bleeding on probing measured from six sites of teeth; BV, bacterial vaginosis; PAL, periodontal attachment loss of ≥1 mm.

Table 2. Detection frequency of selected periodontal pathogens in saliva and antibody concentrations to these species in serum and saliva of study subjects (n = 256) as a comparison between those with success or no success in becoming pregnant

	Became pregnant (n = 205)	Did not become pregnant (n = 51)	p-Value
Saliva PCR, n (%)
Pg positive	4 (2.1)	4 (8.3)	0.032^a
Aa positive	9 (4.7)	1 (2.1)	0.416^a
Antibody level, median (IQR)
Serum (EU)
Pg-IgA	0.31 (0.22)	0.35 (0.30)	0.324^b
Pg-IgG	2.86 (1.63)	3.02 (2.20)	0.494^b
Aa-IgA	0.49 (0.46)	0.44 (0.44)	0.920^b
Aa-IgG	1.43 (1.48)	1.67 (1.99)	0.055^b
Saliva (AU)
Pg-IgA	0.86 (0.55)	1.07 (0.64)	0.006^b
Pg-IgG	0.11 (0.13)	0.17 (0.22)	0.007^b
Aa-IgA	0.93 (0.84)	0.99 (0.77)	0.628^b
Aa-IgG	0.25 (0.32)	0.33 (0.51)	0.114^b

p-Values <0.05 are considered significant (shown in bold).

^aChi-square test.

^bNon-parametric Mann–Whitney U two independent samples test.

PCR, polymerase chain reaction; Pg, Porphyromonas gingivalis; Aa, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans; EU, ELISA units; AU, absorbance units.

Table 3. Associations of selected periodontal pathogens in saliva and antibody concentrations to these species in serum and saliva with delayed conception during a 12-month follow-up

	HR (95% CI), p-value
Saliva PCR
Pg positive	2.85 (1.00–8.24), 0.048
Aa positive	0.56 (0.08–4.09), 0.565
Antibody level
Serum (EU)
Pg-IgA	1.16 (0.83–1.63), 0.385
Pg-IgG	1.00 (0.93–1.07), 0.950
Aa-IgA	1.22 (0.70–2.13), 0.485
Aa-IgG	1.12 (0.93–1.34), 0.226
Saliva (AU)
Pg-IgA	11.0 (3.01–40), <0.001
Pg-IgG	12.1 (2.63–55), 0.001
Aa-IgA	1.82 (0.54–6.14), 0.331
Aa-IgG	2.58 (0.80–8.28), 0.111

p-Values <0.05 are considered significant (shown in bold).

The Cox regression models are adjusted for age, current smoking, socioeconomic status, bacterial vaginosis, previous deliveries, and clinical periodontal attachment loss.

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, et al. Global burden of severe periodontitis in 1990-2010: a systematic review and meta-regression. J Dent Res. 2014;93:1–6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar