Cargando…
Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metal‐based dental restorations with a subgingival outline may enhance plaque accumulation and bacterial colonization. This study aimed to investigate whether metal‐based restorations influence the composition of subgingival microbiome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Per subject one...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6766957/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30734922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jre.12642 |
_version_ | 1783454806560473088 |
---|---|
author | Rademacher, Steven W. H. Zaura, Egija Kleverlaan, Cornelis J. Buijs, Mark J. Crielaard, Wim Loos, Bruno G. Laine, Marja L. |
author_facet | Rademacher, Steven W. H. Zaura, Egija Kleverlaan, Cornelis J. Buijs, Mark J. Crielaard, Wim Loos, Bruno G. Laine, Marja L. |
author_sort | Rademacher, Steven W. H. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metal‐based dental restorations with a subgingival outline may enhance plaque accumulation and bacterial colonization. This study aimed to investigate whether metal‐based restorations influence the composition of subgingival microbiome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Per subject one site with a metal‐based restoration and one contra‐lateral site without a restoration were selected on basis of radiographic bone loss ≤2 mm, restoration outline at sulcus level/subgingivally, pocket depth ≤4 mm, and no root canal treatments. Subgingival samples were collected with sterile paper‐points, and microbial profiles were obtained by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Restorations were sampled with an Arkansas‐stone and the metal composition was determined using energy‐dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy. RESULTS: A total of 22 sites from 11 subjects were included. No significant differences for the clinical parameters were found between the restored and unrestored sites. The average age of the restorations was 14.9 ± 7.1 years. Firmicutes was the most prevalent phylum at the restored sites (32% vs 20% of the reads of the unrestored sites, P = 0.016), and Actinobacteria at the unrestored sites (33% vs 18% of the reads of the restored sites, P = 0.01). Overall, sequences clustered into 573 operational taxonomic units (OTUs). Species richness of the restored sites was significantly higher than species richness of the unrestored sites (117 ± 32 and 96 ± 20 OTUs, respectively, P = 0.013). No associations between the metal composition and bacterial profiles were found. CONCLUSION: This study shows that metal‐based restorations may enhance colonization of Firmicutes and the neighboring pocket may harbor more diverse microbial communities. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6766957 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67669572019-10-01 Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth Rademacher, Steven W. H. Zaura, Egija Kleverlaan, Cornelis J. Buijs, Mark J. Crielaard, Wim Loos, Bruno G. Laine, Marja L. J Periodontal Res Original Articles BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metal‐based dental restorations with a subgingival outline may enhance plaque accumulation and bacterial colonization. This study aimed to investigate whether metal‐based restorations influence the composition of subgingival microbiome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Per subject one site with a metal‐based restoration and one contra‐lateral site without a restoration were selected on basis of radiographic bone loss ≤2 mm, restoration outline at sulcus level/subgingivally, pocket depth ≤4 mm, and no root canal treatments. Subgingival samples were collected with sterile paper‐points, and microbial profiles were obtained by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Restorations were sampled with an Arkansas‐stone and the metal composition was determined using energy‐dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy. RESULTS: A total of 22 sites from 11 subjects were included. No significant differences for the clinical parameters were found between the restored and unrestored sites. The average age of the restorations was 14.9 ± 7.1 years. Firmicutes was the most prevalent phylum at the restored sites (32% vs 20% of the reads of the unrestored sites, P = 0.016), and Actinobacteria at the unrestored sites (33% vs 18% of the reads of the restored sites, P = 0.01). Overall, sequences clustered into 573 operational taxonomic units (OTUs). Species richness of the restored sites was significantly higher than species richness of the unrestored sites (117 ± 32 and 96 ± 20 OTUs, respectively, P = 0.013). No associations between the metal composition and bacterial profiles were found. CONCLUSION: This study shows that metal‐based restorations may enhance colonization of Firmicutes and the neighboring pocket may harbor more diverse microbial communities. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-02-08 2019-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6766957/ /pubmed/30734922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jre.12642 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Periodontal Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Rademacher, Steven W. H. Zaura, Egija Kleverlaan, Cornelis J. Buijs, Mark J. Crielaard, Wim Loos, Bruno G. Laine, Marja L. Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth |
title | Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth |
title_full | Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth |
title_fullStr | Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth |
title_full_unstemmed | Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth |
title_short | Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth |
title_sort | qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6766957/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30734922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jre.12642 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rademacherstevenwh qualitativeandquantitativedifferencesinthesubgingivalmicrobiomeoftherestoredandunrestoredteeth AT zauraegija qualitativeandquantitativedifferencesinthesubgingivalmicrobiomeoftherestoredandunrestoredteeth AT kleverlaancornelisj qualitativeandquantitativedifferencesinthesubgingivalmicrobiomeoftherestoredandunrestoredteeth AT buijsmarkj qualitativeandquantitativedifferencesinthesubgingivalmicrobiomeoftherestoredandunrestoredteeth AT crielaardwim qualitativeandquantitativedifferencesinthesubgingivalmicrobiomeoftherestoredandunrestoredteeth AT loosbrunog qualitativeandquantitativedifferencesinthesubgingivalmicrobiomeoftherestoredandunrestoredteeth AT lainemarjal qualitativeandquantitativedifferencesinthesubgingivalmicrobiomeoftherestoredandunrestoredteeth |