Gingival Crevicular Blood for Assessment of Blood Glucose in Diabetic Patients

Abstract

In this study 50 patients with diabetes mellitus had gingival crevicular blood from periodontal probing collected in small plastic pipettes. The pipettes transferred the crevicular blood to a non‐wipe glucose self‐monitoring instrument. At the same time, fingerstick capillary blood measurements were analyzed in the same glucose self‐monitoring instrument, and venous blood was collected for measurement in a laboratory glucose analyzer. Each laboratory measurement was corrected from a serum glucose value to a whole blood glucose value by a function of the patient's hematocrit. This corrected glucose value allowed direct comparison of the laboratory measurement to the intraoral and finger‐stick whole blood measurements. The patient blood glucose concentrations ranged from 59 mg/dl to 366 mg/dl. The gingival crevicular blood exhibited a correlation of r = 0.975 (P <.0001) to the corrected laboratory standard measurement, with a mean prediction error (bias) of −4.11 mg/dl and a root mean square error (precision) of 17.43 mg/dl. The finger‐stick blood had a correlation of r = 0.983 (P <.0001) to the corrected laboratory standard, with a mean prediction error of 4.65 mg/dl and a root mean square error of 14.48 mg/dl. The American Diabetic Association recommends that the prediction error of blood glucose monitoring devices fall within 15% of the laboratory standard. Using this criterion 92% of the gingival crevicular measurements and 90% of the fingerpuncture measurements fell within 15% of the laboratory value. The results suggest that gingival crevicular blood collected by a small plastic pipette and measured in a nonwipe glucose self‐monitor is feasible for in‐office blood glucose testing with measurements comparable to those obtained using the finger‐puncture method. J Periodontol 1993;64:666–672.

Assessment of Blood Glucose Using Gingival Crevicular Blood in Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Patients: A Chair Side Method

“…Since the corrected laboratory measurement is considered to be the true (or reference) value, its comparison to GCB and FP blood measurements allows the evaluation of accuracy and precision of each blood collecting technique and the self-monitor. The results of the present study are in agreement with the study conducted by Beikler T et al, [4] and Stein G M [5] and also The present study reiterates the results by Parker et al, [7].…”

“…Thus, giving a reading by colour matching . [7] It also offers advantage over the third generation glucometer which is a non-invasive meter and the samples are obtained without direct contact with the body tissues [15]. Hence, its use for detecting the glucose readings with the GCB sample may not be possible.In the present study GCB and FP blood glucose were measured in each patient using self-monitoring glucometric device.…”

“…It's a responsibility of dental practitioners to screen for undiagnosed cases which may influence dental treatment or the general well being of their patients (Council on Dental Health and Health Planning-1980). Thus, monitoring their blood glucose during the office-visit may be a better alternative [7].…”

“…Routine probing during periodontal examination is more familiar to the practitioner and less traumatic than a finger puncture with a sharp lancet. It is possible that gingival crevicular blood from probing may be an excellent source of blood for glucometric analysis using the technology of portable glucose monitors [7].…”

Assessment of blood glucose levels in diabetic patients with periodontitis: A three-way method using gingival crevicular, capillary, and venous blood

“…The results of this study are in agreement with the studies conducted by Parker et al in 1993 who examined patients with diabetes and unknown periodontal status, a very strong correlation was observed between gingival crevicular, capillary and venous blood glucose measurements. [9] Studies conducted by Beiker et al, Müller and Behbehani consisted of non-diabetic patients [10,11] and the results of this study were also comparable to these studies except that they did not compare GCBG and capillary blood glucose to fasting venous blood glucose. This is a much stronger relationship than reported by Tsutsui et al (r = 0.782).…”