Dental Academy for Continuing Professional Development, Karlsruhe, Lorenzstrasse 7, 76135, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Center for Implantology and Oral Surgery, Berliner Straße 41, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Mar 11;21(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01439-w.
Implants are a predictable and well-established treatment method in dentistry. Nevertheless, looking at possible failures of dental implants, early and late loss have to be distinguished. The intent of the study was to report microbiological findings on the surface of implants with severe peri-implantitis, which had to be explanted.
53 specimens of implants from 48 patients without severe general illnesses have been examined. The groups investigated were implants that had to be removed in the period of osseointegration (early loss, 13 patients with 14 implants) or after the healing period (late loss, 14 patients with 17 implants). The implant losses were compared with two control groups (implants with no bone loss directly after completed osseointegration, two to four months after implant placement (17 patients with 17 implants) and implants with no bone loss and prosthetic restoration for more than three years (5 patients with 5 implants)). Data about the bacteria located in the peri-implant sulcus was collected using amplification and high throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene.
The biofilm composition differed substantially between individuals. Both in early and late implant loss, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas gingivalis were found to be abundant. Late lost implants showed higher bacterial diversity and in addition higher abundances of Treponema, Fretibacterium, Pseudoramibacter and Desulfobulbus, while microbial communities of early loss implants were very heterogeneous and showed no significantly more abundant bacterial taxa.
Specific peri-implant pathogens were found around implants that were lost after a primarily uneventful osseointegration. P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum frequently colonized the implant in early and late losses and could therefore be characteristic for implant loss in general. In general, early lost implants showed also lower microbial diversity than late losses. However, the microbial results were not indicative of the causes of early and late losses.
植入物是牙科中一种可预测且成熟的治疗方法。然而,在考虑种植牙的可能失败时,必须区分早期和晚期的损失。本研究的目的是报告严重种植体周围炎的种植体表面的微生物学发现,这些种植体必须被取出。
检查了 48 名无严重全身疾病患者的 53 个种植体标本。研究组包括在骨整合期(早期损失,13 名患者,14 个种植体)或愈合期后(晚期损失,14 名患者,17 个种植体)必须取出的种植体。将种植体的损失与两个对照组进行比较(直接在骨整合完成后 2 至 4 个月无骨损失的种植体(17 名患者,17 个种植体)和无骨损失且修复体超过 3 年的种植体(5 名患者,5 个种植体))。使用 16S rRNA 基因的扩增和高通量测序收集位于种植体周围龈沟中的细菌数据。
个体间生物膜的组成有很大差异。在早期和晚期种植体丢失中,发现核梭杆菌和牙龈卟啉单胞菌丰度很高。晚期丢失的种植体显示出更高的细菌多样性,此外还具有更高丰度的栖牙密螺旋体、纤维杆菌属、假拟杆菌属和脱硫孤菌属,而早期丢失种植体的微生物群落非常异质,没有明显更多丰富的细菌类群。
在骨整合后主要无并发症的情况下丢失的种植体周围发现了特定的种植体周围病原体。牙龈卟啉单胞菌和核梭杆菌经常定植在早期和晚期丢失的种植体中,因此可能是种植体丢失的特征。一般来说,早期丢失的种植体的微生物多样性也低于晚期丢失的种植体。然而,微生物学结果并不能指示早期和晚期损失的原因。