Qualitative and quantitative differences in the subgingival microbiome of the restored and unrestored teeth

Abstract

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.

Submucosal microbiome of peri‐implant sites: A cross‐sectional study

“…Abusleme et al reported that inflammation was not associated with a distinct microbiome, whereas Camelo‐Castillo et al showed that increased inflammation was associated with more diverse microbiota and higher abundance of Desulfobulbus , Eubacterium , Filifactor , Streptococcus , Tannerella , and Treponema (Abusleme et al, 2013 ; Camelo‐Castillo et al, 2015 ). A third study, which examined the subgingival microbiome of restored and unrestored teeth, reported differences in the microbial profiles between bleeding and non‐bleeding restored sites; Prevotella and Treponema were detected in higher abundance in bleeding sites, whereas Enterococcus was associated with non‐bleeding sites (Rademacher et al, 2019 ). In accordance with our results, the implant system is not associated with the composition of the submucosal microbiome of peri‐implant sites (Sanz‐Martin et al, 2017 ).…”

Different oral and gut microbial profiles in those with Alzheimer's disease consuming anti-inflammatory diets

“…Participants were instructed not to brush their teeth on the morning of the sampling day and the night before. After a trained dentist scratched the supragingival debris with sterilized cotton balls, a subgingival plaque was collected with 40# sterilized paper points (Gapadent, Tianjin, China) that were gently inserted into the deep periodontal pocket for 20 s. Once removed from the periodontal pocket, the paper point was placed into a 1-mL sterile cryopreservation tube ( 50 ). No sample was collected if a patient had no teeth or dental implants.…”

A Longitudinal Study of the Human Oropharynx Microbiota Over Time Reveals a Common Core and Significant Variations With Self-Reported Disease

“…This has resulted in a shift of focus away from single species to considering that increasing understanding of human health and disease requires the characterization of the microbial community. Dewhirst et al (2010); Jenkinson (2011), and Verma et al (2018) Microbial communities and their ecology have been described in several oral habitats such as teeth (Becker et al, 2002;Rademacher et al, 2019), tongue (Jiang et al, 2012;Wilbert et al, 2020), gingival sulcus (Paster et al, 2001;Wei et al, 2020), and saliva (Sakamoto et al, 2000;Nasidze et al, 2009), but with a particular focus on disease-state (Aas et al, 2005;Zaura et al, 2009) and, unfortunately, often lacking sufficient depth and spatial or temporal sampling breadth to unravel the ecology and dynamics of microbial communities (Yang et al, 2016). Moreover, less information is available regarding the healthy microbiome of the human oropharynx.…”