# The Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification for the Rapid Detection of Porphromonas Gingivalis
## 3 Results  
The periopathogen detection by LAMP and PCR compared with qPCR (as the gold standard) depending on the medium (TE or Difast buffer) is presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows the statistical parameters comparing the diagnostic values of LAMP and PCR with qPCR. The best diagnostic quality parameters were achieved for LAMP using the TE buffer for the _P. gingivalis_ determination. For the remaining periopathogens, a comparable high diagnostic usefulness was not observed. For LAMP, it was found that the Difast buffer detected periopathogens less frequently in the samples compared to the TE buffer (Table 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{12}{c}{_Porphyomonas gingiensis_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Fusobacterium mechanism_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Tunnerella forsythia_} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{LAMP} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{PCR} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{LAMP} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{PCR} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{LAMP} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{PCR} \\
**qPCR** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The periodoughn detection by LAMP and PCR with qPCR (as gold standard) depending on the medium (TE or DMist buffer).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{_Porphyomonas gingiensis_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Fusobacterium mechanism_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Tunnerella forsythia_} \\  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{LAMP} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{PCR} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{LAMP} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{PCR} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{LAMP} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{PCR} \\  & **TE** & **Difast** & **TE** & **Difast** & **TE** & **Difast** & **TE** & **Difast** & **TE** & **Difast** & **TE** & **Difast** & **TE** & **Difast** \\ \hline PPV & 0.818 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.083 & 0.400 & 0.100 & 0.167 & 0.556 & 0.000 & 0.400 & 0.667 \\ NPV & 0.900 & 0.900 & 0.738 & 0.900 & 0.725 & 0.294 & 0.738 & 0.556 & 0.351 & 0.300 & 0.306 & 0.368 \\ ACC & 0.865 & 0.903 & 0.780 & 0.903 & 0.577 & 0.318 & 0.615 & 0.485 & 0.391 & 0.273 & 0.326 & 0.409 \\ Sensitivity & 0.857 & 0.250 & 0.421 & 0.250 & 0.083 & 0.143 & 0.083 & 0.077 & 0.172 & 0.000 & 0.138 & 0.143 \\ Specificity & 0.871 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.725 & 0.625 & 0.775 & 0.750 & 0.765 & 0.570 & 0.647 & 0.875 \\ Lk+ & 6.643 & - & - & - & - & 0.303 & 0.881 & 0.370 & 0.306 & 0.733 & 0.000 & 0.391 & 1.143 \\ Lk- & 0.164 & 0.750 & 0.579 & 0.750 & 1.264 & 1.371 & 1.183 & 1.231 & 1.082 & 1.333 & 1.332 & 0.980 \\ Jouden index & 0.728 & 0.250 & 0.421 & 0.250 & \(-0.192\) & \(-0.232\) & \(-0.142\) & \(-0.173\) & \(-0.063\) & \(-0.250\) & \(-0.215\) & 0.018 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Statistical parameters for the periodoughn detection by LAMP and PCR compared with qPCR (as gold standard) depending on the medium (TE or DMist buffer).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{_Porphyomonas gingiensis_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Fusobacterium mechanism_} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Tunnerella forsythia_} \\  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{+} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{+} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{+} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Difast} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{+} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{2} (6.06) & - & 3 (9.09) & - & 1 (3.03) \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{13} (93.39) & 18 (54.55) & 7 (21.21) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{23} (69.70) & 6 (18.18) & 26 (78.79) \\ \cline{1-1}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(p\)value *} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.507} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{-} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison of the periodughn detection by LAMP depending on the medium (TE or DMist buffer).