Presence of Helicobacter pylori and Campylobacter ureolyticus in the oral cavity of a Northern Thailand population that experiences stomach pain

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the 93 subjects examined, divided into 2 groups: those experiencing frequent stomach pain and those never or very rarely experiencing stomach pain

Variable		Stomach pain
		Yes (n = 61)	No (n = 32)
Women (%)		37 (61)	18 (56)
Age (mean ± SD^a)		51.0 ± 6.5	50.6 ± 7.1
Betel chewing (%)		36 (59)	17 (53)	ns
Tobacco smoking (%)		32 (52)	19 (59)	ns
Both betel and smoking (%)		14 (23)	12 (38)	ns
Oral hygiene habits (%)^b	Never	24 (41)	11 (33)	ns
	Sometimes	17 (29)	9 (28)
	Every day	17 (29)	12 (38)
Sugar intake (%)	Never	11 (18)	3 (9)	ns
	Once a week	34 (56)	19 (59)
	Every day	16 (26)	10 (30)
Remaining teeth (mean ± SD)		25.6 ± 4.0	26.9 ± 1.7	*
DFT^c (mean ± SD)		4.9 ± 8.1	2.3 ± 3.4	*
PI^d (mean ± SD)		87.8 ± 14.8	91.6 ± 8.1	ns
BoP^e (mean ± SD)		48.9 ± 34.5	74.8 ± 32.4	**
Calculus median (range)^f		4 (0–8)	4 (1–8)	ns
Subjects with PPD (%)^g	>4 < 7 mm	25 (41)	10 (30)	ns
	≥7 mm	16 (26)	6 (19)
Subjects with CAL (%)^h	>3 < 7 mm	29 (48)	14 (44)	ns
	≥7 mm	17 (28)	8 (25)
pH mean (range)^i		7.2 (6.5–8.4)	7.2 (6.5–8.2)	ns
Urease test score (range)^j		0 (0–1)	0.5 (0–2)	ns

*p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

^aStandard deviation.

^bn = 90. Missing data on three individuals.

^cDecayed filled teeth.

^dPlaque index.

^eBleeding on probing.

^fn = 74. Missing data on 19 individuals.

^gAt least one pocket with PPD (probing pocket depth) >4 < 7 mm or ≥7 mm.

^hAt least one pocket with CAL (clinical attachment level) >3 < 7 mm or ≥7 mm.

ⁱMean calculated from mean of four measuring sites per subject, n = 92.

^jMedian calculated from median of four measuring sites per subject, n = 66.

Figure 1. Presence and semi-quantification of H. pylori and C. ureolyticus and 12 other common dental plaque bacteria in interproximal samples from adult individuals with stomach pain (+) and without (−) of the Karen Hill Tribes of Northern Thailand

Table 2. The pattern/structure matrix from factor analyses.^a

Species	Pattern/Structure coefficients
Factor analyses (variance)	Factor 1 (43.0 %)	Factor 2 (14.1 %)	Factor 3 (7.6 %)
A. oris	0.069	0.414	0.563
C. gracilis	0.889	0.145	0.151
C. rectus	0.448	0.540	0.294
C. ureolyticus	0.564	0.040	0.476
F. alocis	−0.215	0.773	0.170
F. nucleatum	0.427	0.552	0.274
H. pylori	0.871	0.148	0.078
H. parainfluenzae	−0.107	0.366	0.778
L. fermentum	0.909	0.174	0.057
P. intermedia	0.395	0.708	0.153
P. tannerae	0.678	0.558	0.037
S. mutans	0.338	−0.041	0.692
S. salivarius	0.539	−0.020	0.271
S. sanguinis	0.300	0.374	0.541

Factor loadings >0.5 are given in bold, indicating a significant contribution to the variance of each factor.

^aThe results are from factor analyses, with Varimax rotation for log counts of identified bacterial species. The three factors illustrated explain 65% of the variance.

Table 3. Multilevel regression analyses for factors from factor analyses

Stomach pain No/Yes	Coefficient	p-Value	95% confidence interval
			Lower	Upper
Factor 1^a	0.12	0.000*	0.07	0.16
Factor 2^b	−0.02	0.335	−0.07	0.02
Factor 3^c	−0.03	0.173	−0.08	0.01

^aFactor 1 consisting of the following bacteria: C. gracilis, C. ureolyticus, H. pylori, L. fermentum, P. tannerae, S. salivarius.

^bFactor 2 consisting of the following bacteria: F. alocis, F. nucleatum, C. rectus, P. intermedia, P. tannerae.

^cFactor 3 consisting of the following bacteria: A. oris, H. parainfluenzae, S. mutans, S. sanguinis.

Table 4. Logistic regression predicting likelihood of reporting stomach pain

				95% confidence interval for OR
Stomach pain No/Yes	B	p-Value	OR	Lower	Upper
Age	−0.024	0.537	0.976	0.905	1.053
Gender	−0.026	0.959	0.974	0.360	2.635
Smoking	−0.252	0.596	0.778	0.306	1.973
Betel chewing	0.215	0.667	1.240	0.465	3.308
DFT	0.095	0.111	1.100	0.978	1.237
PPD	1.083	0.335	2.954	0.327	26.662
Constant	1.486	0.434	4.419