Pyrosequencing of supra- and subgingival biofilms from inflamed peri-implant and periodontal sites

Abstract

BackgroundTo investigate the microbial composition of biofilms at inflamed peri-implant and periodontal tissues in the same subject, using 16S rRNA sequencing.MethodsSupra- and submucosal, and supra- and subgingival plaque samples were collected from 7 subjects suffering from diseased peri-implant and periodontal tissues. Bacterial DNA was isolated and 16S rRNA genes were amplified, sequenced and aligned for the identification of bacterial genera.Results43734 chimera-depleted, denoised sequences were identified, corresponding to 1 phylum, 8 classes, 10 orders, 44 families and 150 genera. The most abundant families or genera found in supramucosal or supragingival plaque were Streptoccocaceae, Rothia and Porphyromonas. In submucosal plaque, the most abundant family or genera found were Rothia, Streptococcaceae and Porphyromonas on implants. The most abundant subgingival bacteria on teeth were Prevotella, Streptococcaceae, and TG5. The number of sequences found for the genera Tannerella and Aggregatibacter on implants differed significantly between supra- and submucosal locations before multiple testing. The analyses demonstrated no significant differences between microbiomes on implants and teeth in supra- or submucosal and supra- or subgingival biofilms.ConclusionDiseased peri-implant and periodontal tissues in the same subject share similiar bacterial genera and based on the analysis of taxa on a genus level biofilm compositions may not account for the potentially distinct pathologies at implants or teeth.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6831-14-157) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Microbiome and Microbial Biofilm Profiles of Peri‐Implantitis: A Systematic Review

“…Of these, 87 were excluded after review of the title or abstract, and 39 1,9,10,13,14,16‐19,23‐52 full‐text studies were reviewed. Ultimately, 26 studies 9,10,13,14,16‐19,27,36‐52 were included (Table 1), and 13 1,23‐30,32‐35 were excluded for different reasons (12 1,23‐30,33‐35 for not fulfilling the proposed inclusion criteria and one 32 due to its retrospective design). In total, 1,145 patients with 2,134 implants were assessed in the 26 cross‐sectional studies studies 7,9,10,13,14,16‐19,27,36‐46,48‐52 that were included in this review.…”

“…Orange complex microorganisms ( Pi , Prevotella nigrescens [ Pn ], Fn , and Ec ) were more frequent in nine studies (42.8%) in peri‐implantitis 17,36,37,39‐41,43,44,47 . However, seven studies (33.3%) failed to find differences in the frequency of these microorganisms between patients with peri‐implantitis and healthy implants 9,13,14,16,45,50,52 . (Tables 2 and 3).…”

“…All studies described standardized, conventional microbiologic methods (i.e., culturing, PCR, and DNA hybridization) or sequencing techniques, but none reported blinding of examiners. All but three studies 14,38,46 considered in this review showed adequate assessment of peri‐implant conditions using clinical and radiographic evaluation; however, only 14 studies used probing depth (PD) for peri‐implantitis diagnosis: six studies 16,17,40,44,45,49 used a PD >4 mm, and eight 9,10,19,42,43,47,50,52 used a PD >5 mm. Comparability of groups according to use of similar implant therapy was suitable only in 10 studies, 7,9,13,14,37,40,41,43,49,51 and control of confounders (i.e., smoking, DM, and periodontal disease activity) by exclusion or statistical analysis was adequate only in six studies 9,14,27,37,42,43 (Table 2).…”

Titanium as a modifier of the peri‐implant microbiome structure

“…Extensive effort has gone into the characterization of the peri‐implant biofilm. While recent advances in technology allow for a rich exploration of the microbial composition of both healthy versus diseased implants, and healthy versus diseased teeth, there remains a lack of consensus reporting both the complexity and the distinction of the microbiome at teeth and implant sites . It is difficult to compare prior studies due to lack of consistency in case selection, disease definition, and reporting .…”

“…A recent systematic review of the microbial profile associated with dental implants confirms that the lack of homogeneity of the reviewed studies did not allow for any direct comparison . The lack of a clear distinction of the biofilm associated with diseased implants suggests that unknown factors in addition to biofilm composition may account for the distinct pathology between peri‐implantitis and periodontitis …”