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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rademacher, Steven W. H., Zaura, Egija, Kleverlaan, Cornelis J., Buijs, Mark J., Crielaard, Wim, Loos, Bruno G., Laine, Marja L.
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