Oral bacterial colonization on dental implants restored with titanium or zirconia abutments: 6-month follow-up
This investigation aimed to characterize in a 6-month follow-up the microbial profile of implants restored with either titanium or zirconia abutments at the genus or higher taxonomic levels.
Twenty healthy individuals indicative for implant-retained single restorations were investigated. Half of participants were restored with titanium and half with zirconia abutments. Biofilm was collected from the implant-related sites after 1, 3, and 6 months of loading. The 16S rDNA genes were amplified and sequenced with Roche/454 platform.
A total of 596 species were identified in 360 samples and grouped in 18 phyla and 104 genera. Titanium- or zirconia-related sites as well as teeth showed similar total numbers of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) colonizing surfaces over time. Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria were the most prevalent phyla with significant differences between different surfaces and time point. Unclassified genera were found in lower levels (1.71% up to 9.57%) on titanium and zirconia samples when compared with teeth, with no significant differences.
Titanium- and zirconia-related surfaces are promptly colonized by a bacterial community similar to those found in the remaining adjacent teeth. Results suggest a selective adhesion of different bacterial genotypes for either titanium or zirconia surfaces. Data also indicate a significant interaction between the relative effects taxa, time point, and sampling site.
The present study disclosed a wider spectrum of microorganisms colonizing either titanium- or zirconia-related microbiomes in very early stage of implant colonization, revealing differences and suggesting a probably specific mechanism for selective bacterial adhesion.
KeywordsBacteria Biofilm Clinical outcomes Dental implants Molecular genetics
The work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP—Process 2010/12830-0 and 2014/22876-8) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq—Process 457941/2014-6).
Compliance with ethical standards
Approval for surgery and sampling was obtained from the local Research Ethics Committee (CAAE 0066.0.138.000-10).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this investigation involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Faculty of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto Ethical Committee (Brazil) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza ES (2015) Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(3):377–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.023 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Chen MH, Shi JY. (2017) Clinical and radiological outcomes of implants in osteotome sinus floor elevation with and without grafting: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12576
- 7.do Nascimento C, Miani PK, Pedrazzi V, Muller K, Albuquerque Junior RF (2012) Bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface: culture and DNA checkerboard hybridization analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(10):1168–1172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02280.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Canullo L, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Soldini C, Mazzocco F, Penarrocha M, Covani U (2015) Microbiological assessment of the implant-abutment interface in different connections: cross-sectional study after 5 years of functional loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(4):426–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12383 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Penarrocha-Oltra D, Monreal-Bello A, Penarrocha-Diago M, Alonso-Perez-Barquero J, Botticelli D, Canullo L (2016) Microbial colonization of the peri-implant sulcus and implant connection of implants restored with cemented versus screw-retained superstructures: a cross-sectional study. J Periodontol 87(9):1002–1011. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.160017 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Harder S, Dimaczek B, Açil Y, Terheyden H, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M (2010) Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection—in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig 14(4):427–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0317-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Meyer F, Paarmann D, D’Souza M, Olson R, Glass EM, Kubal M, Paczian T, Rodriguez A, Stevens R, Wilke A, Wilkening J, Edwards RA (2008) The metagenomics RAST server—a public resource for the automatic phylogenetic and functional analysis of metagenomes. BMC Bioinformatics 9(1):386. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-386 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Brunner E, Domhof S, Langer F (2012) Nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 29.Drescher J, Schlafer S, Schaudinn C, Riep B, Neumann K, Friedmann A, Petrich A, Gobel UB, Moter A (2010) Molecular epidemiology and spatial distribution of Selenomonas spp. in subgingival biofilms. Eur J Oral Sci 118(5):466–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00765.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, Cugini MA, Smith C, Kent RL Jr (1998) Microbial complexes in subgingival plaque. J Clin Periodontol 25(2):134–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1998.tb02419.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Dingsdag S, Nelson S, Coleman NV (2016) Bacterial communities associated with apical periodontitis and dental implant failure. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 27. https://doi.org/10.3402/mehd.v27.31307
- 35.Heuer W, Kettenring A, Stumpp SN, Eberhard J, Gellermann E, Winkel A, Stiesch M (2012) Metagenomic analysis of the peri-implant and periodontal microflora in patients with clinical signs of gingivitis or mucositis. Clin Oral Investig 16(3):843–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0561-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Pérez-Chaparro PJ, Duarte PM, Shibli JA, Montenegro S, Lacerda Heluy S, Figueiredo LC, Faveri M, Feres M (2016) The current weight of evidence of the microbiologic profile associated with peri-implantitis: a systematic review. J Periodontol 87(11):1295–1304. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.160184 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Schaumann S, Staufenbiel I, Scherer R, Schilhabel M, Winkel A, Stumpp SN, Eberhard J, Stiesch M (2014) Pyrosequencing of supra- and subgingival biofilms from inflamed peri-implant and periodontal sites. BMC Oral Health 14(1):157. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-157 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Sanz M, Beighton D, Curtis MA, Cury JA, Dige I, Dommisch H, Ellwood R, Giacaman R, Herrera D, Herzberg MC, Könönen E, Marsh PD, Meyle J, Mira A, Molina A, Mombelli A, Quirynen M, Reynolds EC, Shapira L, Zaura E (2017) Role of microbial biofilms in the maintenance of oral health and in the development of dental caries and periodontal diseases. Consensus report of group 1 of the Joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol 18:S5–S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Hannig C, Hannig M (2009) The oral cavity—a key system to understand substratum-dependent bioadhesion on solid surfaces in man. 13(2):123–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0243-3