Tissues surrounding dental implants and teeth develop clinical inflammation in response to microbial stimuli. However, the literature suggests that differences exist in the microbial insult and inflammatory responses leading to gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis. In this pilot study, the authors use for the first time a systems biology approach to comprehensively evaluate clinical parameters, selected inflammatory markers, and the microbiome of subject-matched tooth and implant sites during native inflammation and in response to experimental plaque accumulation. Fifteen subjects with 2 posterior implants and corresponding contralateral teeth were examined at enrollment; at day 0, after reinstitution of gingival/mucosal health; at days 7, 14, and 21, during stent-mediated oral hygiene (OH) abstention; and at day 42, after resumption of OH. The subgingival microbiome was evaluated via 16S rRNA gene sequencing and 8 selected inflammatory markers measured in crevicular fluid. Comparison of teeth and implants via general linear models based on orthogonal polynomials showed similar responses in clinical parameters, inflammatory mediators, and proportions of individual microbial taxa during OH abstention. Implants, however, accumulated less plaque and underwent more heterogeneous shifts in microbiome structure. A multilevel, within-group, sparse partial least squares analysis of covariation of microbial, inflammatory, and clinical parameters throughout all study visits found inflammation around teeth and implants positively correlated with IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta and with the proportions of Selenomonas, Prevotella, and 5 species-level phylotypes. Gingivitis, however, showed a stronger positive correlation with lactoferrin and IL-1ra and a stronger negative correlation with Rothia. Peri-implant mucositis, on the contrary, correlated positively with certain microbial taxa not associated with gingivitis by a previous study or the current one. In summary, differences existed between implants and tooth sites in microbiome evolution during OH abstention and in the correlation of specific inflammatory mediators and microbial taxa with clinical inflammation. Common biological features, however, were also identified for gingivitis and mucositis.

IntroductionEach journal’s editorial and advisory board plays a critical role in resolving gender bias in the peer-review and publication process. Thus, this study aimed to quantify women’s participation in editorial and advisory boards of major dental journals. Gender data on editorial and advisory boards were extracted from major dental journals, which were then categorized by journal specialty focus. The gender of the editor-in-chief and associate editor-in-chief was noted to assess the effect of journal leadership on women’s participation in journal boards. For comparison purposes, data were also obtained regarding the percentage of women faculty for each dental specialty.ResultsOverall, in the major 69 dental journals, 14.8% of editorial board members were women. An one-way ANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant gender differences between journal specialty categories (p = 0.003) with some dental specialties’ journals demonstrating a relatively high participation of women as editorial board members. There was a significant positive correlation for various dental specialties between women’s representation in editorial and advisory boards and women in similar dental academic specialties (p = 0.02, r2 = 0.55). Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between the presence of women in journal editorial leadership and the percentage of women serving as advisory board members (p = 0.03). Our results confirmed that the under-representation of women on dental journal editorial boards was significantly different between dental science specialties. When there were more women in journal editorial leadership positions, there was a higher participation of women as editorial and advisory board members. Journals should increase the numbers of women on editorial boards in order to secure diversity, improve publication quality and recognize women’s contribution to dental science.