Department of Endodontics and Laboratory for Dental Stem Cells and Endocrine Immunology, Tianjin Medical University School of Stomatology, 12 Qixiangtai Road, Heping District, Tianjin, China.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Aug 22;24(1):978. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04677-w.
Microbiomics offers new methods for conducting epidemiological surveys of oral microbiota in large populations. Compared to curette sampling, swab sampling is more convenient and less technically sensitive, making it more suitable for such surveys. To verify the feasibility of using swabs for buccal mucosa sampling in large-scale studies, we collected samples from the buccal mucosa and tooth surfaces of healthy individuals using both swabs and curettes. Microbiomics was employed to analyze and compare microbial abundance and diversity between these two methods.
Four sites were assessed: the buccal mucosa on both sides and the buccal surfaces of the left and right mandibular first molars. Two sampling methods, swab and curette, were used to collect bacterial communities from healthy individuals. Specifically, buccal mucosa samples (n = 10) and tooth surface samples (n = 20) were analyzed using 16 S rDNA gene sequencing. Bacterial signals were detected through fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), targeting the bacterial 16 S rDNA gene. Metastats analysis and Wilcoxon test were used.
A total of 383 OTUs were detected in the 30 samples, which belonged to 1 kingdom (bacteria), 11 phyla, 23 classes, 40 orders, 75 families, 143 genus, and 312 species. Among them, 223 OTUs were found on both the buccal mucosa and tooth surfaces. The statistics suggest that although there were no significant differences in colony composition, there were differences in the abundance and distribution of colonies on the dental and buccal mucosal surfaces. When detecting oral disease-causing pathogens such as Enterococcus faecalis and Porphyromonas gingivalis, the efficiency of detection is higher when using curette sampling. Compared to right tooth sampling with a curette, the swab sampling group had higher levels of Firmicutes, while Fusobacteria and Bacteroidetes were more prevalent in the curette tissues.
In oral health individuals, there is no difference in the bacterial composition of the oral buccal mucosa and the dental surface, differing only in abundance. Thus, the buccal mucosa can act as a substitute for the teeth in epidemiological investigations exploring the bacterial composition of the oral cavity.
微生物组学为大规模人群口腔微生物的流行病学调查提供了新方法。与刮匙采样相比，拭子采样更方便，技术敏感性更低，因此更适合此类调查。为了验证使用拭子对颊黏膜进行大规模研究采样的可行性，我们使用刮匙和拭子从健康个体的颊黏膜和牙齿表面采集样本。采用微生物组学方法分析和比较了这两种方法之间微生物丰度和多样性的差异。
评估了四个部位：双侧颊黏膜和左右下颌第一磨牙的颊面。使用两种采样方法（拭子和刮匙）从健康个体中采集细菌群落。具体来说，通过荧光原位杂交（FISH）分析了 16S rDNA 基因测序的 10 个颊黏膜样本和 20 个牙面样本。使用 Metastats 分析和 Wilcoxon 检验检测细菌信号。
在 30 个样本中共检测到 383 个 OTUs，属于 1 个界（细菌）、11 个门、23 个纲、40 个目、75 个科、143 个属和 312 个种。其中，223 个 OTUs 在颊黏膜和牙面都有发现。统计数据表明，尽管菌落组成没有显著差异，但牙面和颊黏膜表面菌落的丰度和分布存在差异。在检测口腔致病性病原体，如粪肠球菌和牙龈卟啉单胞菌时，使用刮匙采样的检测效率更高。与右侧牙用刮匙相比，拭子采样组厚壁菌门的丰度更高，而 Fusobacteria 和 Bacteroidetes 在刮匙组织中更为普遍。
在口腔健康个体中，口腔颊黏膜和牙齿表面的细菌组成没有差异，只是丰度不同。因此，在口腔细菌组成的流行病学调查中，颊黏膜可以替代牙齿。
