Premium
Subgingival Microbiota in Peri‐Implant Mucosa Lesions and Adjacent Teeth in Partially Edentulous Patients
Author(s) -
Botero Javier E.,
González Ana M.,
Mercado Ramiro A.,
Olave Gilberto,
Contreras Adolfo
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2005.76.9.1490
Subject(s) - dentistry , peri implantitis , implant , osseointegration , medicine , gingival and periodontal pocket , periodontitis , surgery
Background: Osseointegrated dental implants have been shown to be a predictable approach to provide the adequate support for the replacement of missing teeth. It has been observed that implants showing signs of peri‐implantitis contain subgingival microbiota similar to that around natural teeth with periodontal disease. This study identified the subgingival microbiota around implants with peri‐implant lesions and natural teeth in partially edentulous patients. Methods: Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded and microbial samples taken from 16 implants with signs of pocketing, 12 neighboring and 11 non‐neighboring teeth to the affected implants in 11 patients and 15 stable implants in eight patients (controls). Samples were cultured using techniques for Enterobacteriaceae spp and facultative/anaerobic periodontal pathogens. Statistical analysis included Friedman test to establish differences between the subgingival microbiota cultured from implants and teeth and two‐tailed Mann Whitney test and chi square to find differences in two separate samples ( P ≤0.05). Results: There were statistical differences between the subgingival microbiota in peri‐implant lesions and stable implants for Gram‐negative enteric rods ( P <0.05). P. gingivalis (1.42%) was detected in peri‐implant lesions but not in stable implants. A significant correlation between the subgingival microbiota from implants and neighboring teeth for Gram‐negative enteric rods ( P = 0.023) and implants and non‐neighboring teeth for P. gingivalis ( P = 0.042) was found. The frequency detection of Gram‐negative enteric rods (75%) and P. intermedia/nigrescens (25%) was higher in peri‐implant lesions ( P <0.05). Conclusions: The subgingival microbiota in peri‐implant lesions showed high levels of periodontopathic bacteria and superinfecting bacteria compared to healthy stable implants. The role of superinfecting bacteria in the pathogenesis of periimplant lesions needs further investigation. J Periodontol 2005; 76:1490‐1495 .