Food Science and Technology Department
Department of Food Science and Technology: Faculty Publications
Document Type
Article
Date of this Version
2017
Citation
Payne JB, Johnson PG, Kok CR, Gomes-Neto JC, Ramer-Tait AE, Schmid MJ, Hutkins RW. 2017. Subgingival microbiome colonization and cytokine production during early dental implant healing. mSphere 2: e00527-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/ mSphereDirect.00527-17.
Abstract
Little is known about longitudinal development of the peri-implant subgingival microbiome and cytokine production as a new sulcus forms after dental implant placement. Therefore, the purpose of this observational study was to evaluate simultaneous longitudinal changes in the oral microbiome and cytokine production in the developing peri-implant sulcus compared to control natural teeth. Four and 12 weeks after implant placement and abutment connection, a dental implant and a natural tooth were sampled in 25 patients for subgingival plaque and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF [around teeth] and peri-implant crevicular fluid [PICF] around implants). DNA from plaque samples was extracted and sequenced using Illumina-based 16S rRNA sequencing. GCF and PICF samples were analyzed using a customized Milliplex human cytokine and chemokine magnetic bead panel. Beta diversity analysis revealed that natural teeth and implants had similar subgingival microbiomes, while teeth had greater alpha diversity than implants. At the genus level, however, few differences were noted between teeth and dental implants over 12 weeks. Specifically, Actinomyces and Selenomonas were significantly elevated around teeth versus dental implants at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks, while Corynebacterium and Campylobacter were significantly elevated only at 4 weeks around teeth. The only difference between PICF and GCF biomarkers was significantly elevated granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor levels around teeth versus dental implants at the 4-week visit. The subgingival microbiome and cytokine production were similar between teeth and implants during early healing, suggesting that these profiles are driven by the patient following dental implant placement and are not determined by anatomical niche.
Comments
Copyright © 2017 Payne et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.