来自健康和种植周围的牙种植体的配对和未配对样本的粘膜下微生物组谱。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Oscar Iván Tocarruncho, Yineth Neuta, Yamil Lesmes, Diana Marcela Castillo, Sandra Leal, Leandro Chambrone, Gloria Inés Lafaurie
{"title":"来自健康和种植周围的牙种植体的配对和未配对样本的粘膜下微生物组谱。","authors":"Oscar Iván Tocarruncho,&nbsp;Yineth Neuta,&nbsp;Yamil Lesmes,&nbsp;Diana Marcela Castillo,&nbsp;Sandra Leal,&nbsp;Leandro Chambrone,&nbsp;Gloria Inés Lafaurie","doi":"10.1111/cid.13423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>This cross-sectional study aimed to compare the composition of the submucosal microbiome of peri-implantitis with paired and unpaired healthy implant samples.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We evaluated submucosal plaque samples obtained in 39 cases, including 13 cases of peri-implantitis, 13 cases involving healthy implants from the same patient (paired samples), and 13 cases involving healthy implants from different individuals (unpaired samples). The patients were evaluated using next-generation genomic sequencing (Illumina) based on 16S rRNA gene amplification. The sequences were grouped according to the amplicon sequence variant (ASV) to define the taxonomic categories. Alpha diversity was analyzed using Shannon's and Simpson's indices, while beta diversity was evaluated using principal coordinate analysis, analysis of similarities, and permutational multivariate variance analysis. Additionally, UniFrac distances were evaluated using Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology 2. Finally, we evaluated between-group differences in the taxonomic components.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were no significant between-group differences in alpha diversity. The average bacterial ratios of <i>Filifactor alocis, Porphyromona endodontalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, Peptostreptococcaceae [Eubacterium nodatum], Desulfobulbus sp.</i> HTM 041, and <i>Mogibacterium timidum</i> significantly differed between peri-implantitis samples and unpaired samples from the healthy implants (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). However, there were few differences in the microbiota between peri-implantitis samples and those paired with healthy implants in the same patient.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Future studies comparing the microbiome compositions using sequencing techniques between healthy implants and implants with peri-implantitis should focus on retrieving samples from the same patient, especially in individuals with a history of periodontitis.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Submucosal Microbiome Profiles in Paired and Unpaired Samples From Healthy and Peri-Implantitis Dental Implants\",\"authors\":\"Oscar Iván Tocarruncho,&nbsp;Yineth Neuta,&nbsp;Yamil Lesmes,&nbsp;Diana Marcela Castillo,&nbsp;Sandra Leal,&nbsp;Leandro Chambrone,&nbsp;Gloria Inés Lafaurie\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13423\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>This cross-sectional study aimed to compare the composition of the submucosal microbiome of peri-implantitis with paired and unpaired healthy implant samples.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We evaluated submucosal plaque samples obtained in 39 cases, including 13 cases of peri-implantitis, 13 cases involving healthy implants from the same patient (paired samples), and 13 cases involving healthy implants from different individuals (unpaired samples). The patients were evaluated using next-generation genomic sequencing (Illumina) based on 16S rRNA gene amplification. The sequences were grouped according to the amplicon sequence variant (ASV) to define the taxonomic categories. Alpha diversity was analyzed using Shannon's and Simpson's indices, while beta diversity was evaluated using principal coordinate analysis, analysis of similarities, and permutational multivariate variance analysis. Additionally, UniFrac distances were evaluated using Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology 2. Finally, we evaluated between-group differences in the taxonomic components.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There were no significant between-group differences in alpha diversity. The average bacterial ratios of <i>Filifactor alocis, Porphyromona endodontalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, Peptostreptococcaceae [Eubacterium nodatum], Desulfobulbus sp.</i> HTM 041, and <i>Mogibacterium timidum</i> significantly differed between peri-implantitis samples and unpaired samples from the healthy implants (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). However, there were few differences in the microbiota between peri-implantitis samples and those paired with healthy implants in the same patient.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Future studies comparing the microbiome compositions using sequencing techniques between healthy implants and implants with peri-implantitis should focus on retrieving samples from the same patient, especially in individuals with a history of periodontitis.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13423\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13423","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本横断面研究旨在比较配对和未配对健康种植体样本的种植体周围炎粘膜下微生物组的组成。方法:我们评估了39例粘膜下斑块样本,包括13例种植体周围炎,13例来自同一患者的健康种植体(成对样本),以及13例来自不同个体的健康种植体(未成对样本)。采用基于16S rRNA基因扩增的下一代基因组测序(Illumina)对患者进行评估。根据扩增子序列变异(ASV)对序列进行分类。采用Shannon’s和Simpson’s指数分析α多样性,采用主坐标分析、相似性分析和多变量置换方差分析评价β多样性。此外,利用微生物生态学定量分析2对UniFrac距离进行了评估。最后,我们评估了类群间在分类成分上的差异。结果:两组间α多样性无显著差异。种植体周围标本与健康种植体未配对标本中alocis Filifactor、endodontalporphyromona、forsythia Tannerella、密螺旋体Treponema denticola、Peptostreptococcaceae[结核真杆菌]、Desulfobulbus sp. HTM 041和Mogibacterium timidum的平均细菌比例差异显著(p)。未来使用测序技术比较健康种植体和种植周炎种植体之间微生物组组成的研究应集中于从同一患者,特别是有牙周炎病史的个体中提取样本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Submucosal Microbiome Profiles in Paired and Unpaired Samples From Healthy and Peri-Implantitis Dental Implants

Background

This cross-sectional study aimed to compare the composition of the submucosal microbiome of peri-implantitis with paired and unpaired healthy implant samples.

Methods

We evaluated submucosal plaque samples obtained in 39 cases, including 13 cases of peri-implantitis, 13 cases involving healthy implants from the same patient (paired samples), and 13 cases involving healthy implants from different individuals (unpaired samples). The patients were evaluated using next-generation genomic sequencing (Illumina) based on 16S rRNA gene amplification. The sequences were grouped according to the amplicon sequence variant (ASV) to define the taxonomic categories. Alpha diversity was analyzed using Shannon's and Simpson's indices, while beta diversity was evaluated using principal coordinate analysis, analysis of similarities, and permutational multivariate variance analysis. Additionally, UniFrac distances were evaluated using Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology 2. Finally, we evaluated between-group differences in the taxonomic components.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences in alpha diversity. The average bacterial ratios of Filifactor alocis, Porphyromona endodontalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, Peptostreptococcaceae [Eubacterium nodatum], Desulfobulbus sp. HTM 041, and Mogibacterium timidum significantly differed between peri-implantitis samples and unpaired samples from the healthy implants (p < 0.05). However, there were few differences in the microbiota between peri-implantitis samples and those paired with healthy implants in the same patient.

Conclusions

Future studies comparing the microbiome compositions using sequencing techniques between healthy implants and implants with peri-implantitis should focus on retrieving samples from the same patient, especially in individuals with a history of periodontitis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.90%
发文量
103
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信