2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2004.06.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Human herpesvirus 6 in oral fluids from healthy individuals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
14
1
5

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
3
14
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…We did not observe correlations between coinfection and gender or ethnicity (data not shown). This high frequency of detection [19], [21], [40], [41] and range of viral copies/ml saliva [20] are both consistent with other published reports.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…We did not observe correlations between coinfection and gender or ethnicity (data not shown). This high frequency of detection [19], [21], [40], [41] and range of viral copies/ml saliva [20] are both consistent with other published reports.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The HHV‐6 detection rate in saliva of patients in the present study was similar to that found in donors. This is not surprising since HHV‐6 replicates in the salivary glands and is detected commonly in the saliva of healthy subjects [Cone et al, ; Pereira et al, ]. The search for HHV‐6 DNA in saliva samples in the present study also revealed that co‐infection with this herpesvirus is possible, but does not seems to be a characteristic of Bell's palsy patients since HHV‐6 was also detected in healthy donors.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Pereira et al (2004) have already described similar results for HHV-6 prevalence using gingival crevicular fluid and parotid gland saliva (14%), suggesting that inhibitors present in saliva would interfere with DNA amplification, resulting in false-negatives. In fact, rates of DNA detection showed a wide variation among different studies and geographic regions (Zerr et al 2000, Ward 2005).…”
supporting
confidence: 54%