Chen Y T, Wang H L, Lopatin D E, O'Neal R, MacNeil R L
Department of Periodontics/Prevention/Geriatrics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
J Periodontol. 1997 Feb;68(2):172-9. doi: 10.1902/jop.1997.68.2.172.
Microbial colonization of barrier materials used in guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is known to adversely affect treatment outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate at which 11 commonly-occurring oral bacteria species colonize three different barrier materials (collagen, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, and polylactic acid). The study group consisted of 10 systemically healthy individuals with no history of periodontal disease and absence of antimicrobial therapy within the previous 3 months. In each patient, 4 teeth per quadrant (P1, P2, M1, M2) were selected and 3 teeth were randomly assigned as test teeth while the remaining tooth acted as a control site (i.e., natural colonization of the tooth surface). These teeth were then randomly assigned to receive one of the three barrier types (i.e., each patient received 4 barriers of each type, 1 per quadrant). A 2 x 5 mm piece of barrier material was positioned over the oral surface of the buccal marginal gingiva and secured with an external sling suture. With oral hygiene procedures suspended, one barrier of each type was collected at 1, 3, 7, and 14 days. Slot immunoblot assay demonstrated that all species types (A. actinomycetemcomitans, A. viscosus, B. melaninogenicus, F. nucleatum, P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, S. mutans, S. sanguis, Selenomonas sputigena, T. denticola, and T. vincentii) were present. Semi-quantitative scoring (scale 0 to 3) of slot blot results and analysis by chi-square ratio and Pearson correlation test indicated that while total bacteria adherence increased over time (P < 0.05), the 3 barrier types and the control sites did not differ in numbers or species of colonizing bacteria detected per time point. These results suggest that under these experimental conditions the barrier materials tested do not differ in bacteria adherence or antimicrobial properties.
引导组织再生（GTR）中使用的屏障材料的微生物定植已知会对治疗结果产生不利影响。本研究的目的是比较11种常见口腔细菌在三种不同屏障材料（胶原蛋白、膨体聚四氟乙烯和聚乳酸）上的定植速率。研究组由10名全身健康、无牙周病病史且在过去3个月内未接受抗菌治疗的个体组成。在每位患者中，每个象限选择4颗牙齿（P1、P2、M1、M2），随机将3颗牙齿指定为测试牙齿，其余牙齿作为对照部位（即牙齿表面的自然定植）。然后将这些牙齿随机分配接受三种屏障类型之一（即每位患者每种类型接受4个屏障，每个象限1个）。将一块2×5毫米的屏障材料放置在颊侧边缘龈的口腔表面，并用外部悬吊缝线固定。在暂停口腔卫生程序的情况下，在第1、3、7和14天收集每种类型的一个屏障。狭缝免疫印迹分析表明所有菌种类型（伴放线放线杆菌、粘性放线菌、产黑色素普氏菌、具核梭杆菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌、中间普氏菌、变形链球菌、血链球菌、口腔栖瘤胃菌、具核梭杆菌和文森特氏螺旋体）均存在。狭缝印迹结果的半定量评分（0至3级）以及卡方比和皮尔逊相关性检验分析表明，虽然总细菌粘附随时间增加（P < 0.05），但在每个时间点检测到的定植细菌数量或种类上，三种屏障类型与对照部位并无差异。这些结果表明，在这些实验条件下，所测试的屏障材料在细菌粘附或抗菌特性方面没有差异。
