Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the microbiome composition in peri-implant pocket of peri-implantitis and peri-implant sulcus controls using 16S rRNA gene sequencing.
METHODS: In this controlled clinical cross-sectional study, 23 subjects with control implants (n = 14) and diseased implants (peri-implantitis, n = 21) were included. The peri-implant pocket/sulcus was sampled and used to extract DNA and amplify the 16S rRNA gene using universal primers targeting the V3-V4 regions. The resulting 16S PCR amplicons were sequenced on Illumina MiSeq, and the sequences were processed using DADA2 and the Human Oral Microbiome Database (HOMD) as references. Alpha and Beta diversity, as well as core microbiome and differential abundance analyses, were performed using the MicrobiomeAnalyst workflow.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in microbial diversity between control implants and implants with peri-implantitis (Shannon p = 0.82). Overall bacterial community structure assessed through beta diversity analysis was also not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.18). However, high levels of Gram-negative bacteria were detected in peri-implant pockets compared to the control sulcus. Abundant species in peri-implantitis were Capnocytophaga leadbetteri, Treponema maltophilum, Peptostreptococcus, Neisseria, P. gingivalis, and Porphyromonas endodontali, Lactococcus lactis and Filifactor alocis (p < 0.05). Gram-positive bacteria such as Streptococcus salivaris, Prevotella melaninogenica, L. wadei, and Actinomyces spp. serve were more abundant in peri-implant control sulcus.
CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant sulcus in control implants harbors predominantly Gram-positive bacteria, whereas pockets of implants with peri-implantitis harbor predominantly Gram-negative bacteria.
METHODS: In this controlled clinical cross-sectional study, 23 subjects with control implants (n = 14) and diseased implants (peri-implantitis, n = 21) were included. The peri-implant pocket/sulcus was sampled and used to extract DNA and amplify the 16S rRNA gene using universal primers targeting the V3-V4 regions. The resulting 16S PCR amplicons were sequenced on Illumina MiSeq, and the sequences were processed using DADA2 and the Human Oral Microbiome Database (HOMD) as references. Alpha and Beta diversity, as well as core microbiome and differential abundance analyses, were performed using the MicrobiomeAnalyst workflow.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in microbial diversity between control implants and implants with peri-implantitis (Shannon p = 0.82). Overall bacterial community structure assessed through beta diversity analysis was also not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.18). However, high levels of Gram-negative bacteria were detected in peri-implant pockets compared to the control sulcus. Abundant species in peri-implantitis were Capnocytophaga leadbetteri, Treponema maltophilum, Peptostreptococcus, Neisseria, P. gingivalis, and Porphyromonas endodontali, Lactococcus lactis and Filifactor alocis (p < 0.05). Gram-positive bacteria such as Streptococcus salivaris, Prevotella melaninogenica, L. wadei, and Actinomyces spp. serve were more abundant in peri-implant control sulcus.
CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant sulcus in control implants harbors predominantly Gram-positive bacteria, whereas pockets of implants with peri-implantitis harbor predominantly Gram-negative bacteria.
摘要：
目的：使用16SrRNA基因测序表征种植体周围炎和种植体周围沟对照的种植体周围口袋中的微生物组组成。
方法：在这项对照临床横断面研究中，23名受试者接受对照植入物(n=14)和患病植入物(种植体周围炎，包括n=21）。对植入物周围口袋/沟进行采样，并用于提取DNA并使用靶向V3-V4区域的通用引物扩增16SrRNA基因。在IlluminaMiSeq上对所得的16SPCR扩增子进行测序，并且使用DADA2和人口腔微生物组数据库(HOMD)作为参考处理序列。阿尔法和贝塔多样性，以及核心微生物组和差异丰度分析，是使用MicrobiomeAnalyst工作流程执行的。
结果：对照植入物与种植体周围炎植入物之间的微生物多样性没有显着差异（ShannonP=0.82）。通过β多样性分析评估的总体细菌群落结构在两组之间也没有显着差异（P=0.18）。然而,与对照沟相比,种植体周围袋中检测到高水平的革兰氏阴性菌.种植体周围炎的物种丰富，麦芽嗜血杆菌,肽链球菌,奈瑟菌,牙龈卟啉单胞菌,P,endodontali,乳酸乳球菌和氟球菌(P<0.05)。革兰氏阳性菌，如S.Salivaris，黑色素原虫，L.wadei,放线菌在种植体周围对照沟中的作用更为丰富。
结论：对照植入物的种植体周围沟主要含有革兰氏阳性菌，而种植体周围炎的种植体口袋主要含有革兰氏阴性菌。本文受版权保护。保留所有权利。
方法：在这项对照临床横断面研究中，23名受试者接受对照植入物(n=14)和患病植入物(种植体周围炎，包括n=21）。对植入物周围口袋/沟进行采样，并用于提取DNA并使用靶向V3-V4区域的通用引物扩增16SrRNA基因。在IlluminaMiSeq上对所得的16SPCR扩增子进行测序，并且使用DADA2和人口腔微生物组数据库(HOMD)作为参考处理序列。阿尔法和贝塔多样性，以及核心微生物组和差异丰度分析，是使用MicrobiomeAnalyst工作流程执行的。
结果：对照植入物与种植体周围炎植入物之间的微生物多样性没有显着差异（ShannonP=0.82）。通过β多样性分析评估的总体细菌群落结构在两组之间也没有显着差异（P=0.18）。然而,与对照沟相比,种植体周围袋中检测到高水平的革兰氏阴性菌.种植体周围炎的物种丰富，麦芽嗜血杆菌,肽链球菌,奈瑟菌,牙龈卟啉单胞菌,P,endodontali,乳酸乳球菌和氟球菌(P<0.05)。革兰氏阳性菌，如S.Salivaris，黑色素原虫，L.wadei,放线菌在种植体周围对照沟中的作用更为丰富。
结论：对照植入物的种植体周围沟主要含有革兰氏阳性菌，而种植体周围炎的种植体口袋主要含有革兰氏阴性菌。本文受版权保护。保留所有权利。
