MICROBIOLOGICAL FEATURES OF MICROBIOCENOSIS OF THE PERI-IMPLANT AREA IN EARLY AND LATE COMPLICATIONS OF DENTAL IMPLANTATION

Efimenko A. O., Stepanskyi O. D., Bogomolny L. O., Koshova I. P., Ishchenko O. V.

MICROBIOLOGY

Scentific article

Introduction. In recent decades, dental implantation has become a routine and predictable procedure with high positive long-term results. At the same time, the development of caries at the crown’s edges, infections of pulp, periodontitis and mechanical complications like tooth fractures can be the causes of the implant loss. The aim of this study was to analyze the bacterial population in the peri-implant pocket of implants and to substantiate the possibility of impact on the key pathogens associated with implant loss. Object and research methods. The study was conducted at the Dnipro State Medical University. There were 52 sets of specimens collected from 42 patients in the study. The study group included patients with implants that had to be removed during the period of osseointegration or after the healing period. Implant loss groups were compared with a control group including patients without bone tissue loss. The study of the composition of the microbial film was carried out by a standard bacteriological method followed by biochemical identification. Statistical processing of research results was carried out using the licensed program STATISTICA 6.1, differences were considered statistically significant at p<0.05. Research results. All samples obtained from patients were positive for microbiota. A total of 174 unique isolates were obtained. Monoculture was used only in 9.52% of cases (n=4). Most identified cultures belonged to phylas Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria. With the use of dark-field microscopy, representatives of the phylum Spirochaetota were found in 27.91% of samples (n=12), identification was not carried out. The culture of Staphylococcus spp. (n=36) was obtained from 38.89% of clinical samples (n=21). The species composition of Staphylococcus genus isolated from the peri-implant area and implants included Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Staphylococcus intermedius, Staphylococcus hominis, Staphylococcus warneri and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. Among all Staphylococcus spp., coagulase-positive isolates, namely S. aureus accounted for 77.78%. Positive for culture Streptococcus spp. were 78.84% of the received samples (n=41), and the majority of isolates (n=28) belonged to the viridans group. The phyla Fusobacteria took second place. Cultures were obtained from 30.77% of samples (n=16). Representatives of the phylum Bacteroidetes were obtained from 25.15% of the selected samples (n=11). Identified genera included Porphyromonas and Prevotella. Representatives of the phylum Proteobacteria were also obtained from patients with complications of dental implantation – 23.08% of samples (n=12). The following genera were identified: Neisseria, Acinetobacter, Klebsiella and Haemophilus. The species composition of the microbiota of the peri-implant area of samples from patients with implant loss differed from the control group, p<0.05. Patients with implant loss had a higher specific gravity of the genera Fusobacterium and Porphyromonas. Samples from the control group contained a relatively high number of bacteria of the genera Streptococcus, Neisseria and Veillonella, p<0.02. Most specimens from patients with late implant loss examined by dark-field microscopy and light microscopy with Giemsa staining were positive for saprophytic spirochetes. Similarly, representatives of the genera Fusobacteria and Porphyromonas had a higher specific gravity (p<0.05) precisely in case of late implant loss. In contrast to the above, the specific gravity of Streptococcus sanguinis and Streptococcus pyogenes, but not other members of the genus Streptococcus, was higher in patients with early implant loss compared to controls. Among patients with implant loss, there were more smokers than in the group with preserved prosthesis – early loss 77%, late loss 78%, control 35% (p=0.04). Patients with early implant loss had periodontitis in 64% of cases, with late – 71%, control group – 29% (p=0.01). Conclusions. Biofilm of the affected dental implants is heterogeneous. The species composition of the microbiota of the peri-implant site with purulent-inflammatory potential was distinguished by a higher specific gravity of the genera Fusobacterium and Porphyromonas, including in late implant loss. Early denture loss has been associated with the isolation of S. sanguinis and S. pyogenes.

dental implantation failure,periimplantitis,Staphylococcus,anaerobic microorganisms,biofilm,microorganisms,microbiocenosis,microbiota,infection

1. Korsch M, Marten SM, Stoll D, Prechtl C, Dötsch A. Microbiological findings in early and late implant loss: an observational clinical case- controlled BMC oral health. 2021;21(1):112. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01439-w.
2. Friedman PK, Kaufman LB, Karpas Oral health disparity in older adults: dental decay and tooth loss. Dent Clin North Am. 2014;58(4):757- 770. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2014.06.004.
3. Rinke S, Ohl S, Ziebolz D, Lange K, Eickholz Prevalence of periimplant disease in partially edentulous patients: a practice-based cross- sectional study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(8):826-833. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02061.x.
4. Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Camargo PM, et Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(1):313-318. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.17-0739.
5. Cynetar Formuvannya bioplivky mikroorhanizmamy ta yikh znachennya u medytsyni. Vistnyk problem biolohiyi i medytsyny. 2018;2(144):59-63. DOI: 10.29254/2077-4214-2018-2-144-59-63. [in Ukrainian].
6. Römling Is biofilm formation intrinsic to the origin of life? Environ Microbiol. 2023;25(1):26-39. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.16179.
7. Charalampakis G, Belibasakis GN. Microbiome of peri-implant infections: lessons from conventional, molecular and metagenomic Virulence. 2015;6(3):183-187. DOI: 10.4161/21505594.2014.980661.
8. Persson GR, Renvert S. Cluster of bacteria associated with peri-implantitis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(6):783-793. DOI: 1111/cid.12052.
9. Perez-Chaparro PJ, Duarte PM, Shibli JA, Montenegro S, Lacerda Heluy S, Figueiredo LC, et The current weight of evidence of the microbiologic profile associated with peri-implantitis: a systematic review. J Periodontol. 2016;87(11):1295-304. DOI: 10.1902/ jop.2016.160184.
10. Daubert D, Pozhitkov A, McLean J, Kotsakis G. Titanium as a modifier of the peri-implant microbiome structure. Clin Implant Dent Relat 2018;20(6):945-53.
11. Rakic M, Grusovin MG, Canullo L. The microbiologic profile associated with peri-implantitis in humans: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac 2016;31(2):359-68. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4150.
12. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
13. MOZ Ukrainy. Forma pervynnoyi oblikovoyi dokumentatsiyi № 003-6/o «Informovana dobrovilʹna z·hoda patsiyenta na provedennya diahnostyky, likuvannya ta na provedennya operatsiyi ta znebolennya i na prysutnistʹ abo uchastʹ uchasnykiv osvitnʹoho protsesu». Nakaz MOZ № 549 vid 08.08.2014 zi zminamy Nakaz MOZ № 2837 vid 09.12.2020 [Internet]. Kyyiv: MOZ Ukrainy; 2020 [cited 2023 Jan 19]. Dostupno: .https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/z0697-12#Text. [in Ukrainian]
14. Cornaglia G, Courcol R, Herrmann J-L, Kahlmeter G, Peigue-Lafeuille H, Vila J. ESCMID: European manual of clinical microbiology. 1st ESCMID; 2012. 472 p.
15. Wagendorf O, Menzel P, Schwarzer R, Neckel N, Preissner S, Heiland M, et Sonication versus the conventional method for evaluation of the dental microbiome: a prospective pilot study. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):348. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02374-0.
16. Ryzhov OA, Penkin Statystychni metody opratsyuvannya rezulʹtativ medychno-biolohichnykh doslidzhenʹ. Lviv: Mahnoliya; 2022. 160 s. [in Ukrainian].
17. Yadav SK, Singh S, Gupta Biomedical Statistics. A Beginner’s Guide. 1st ed. Singapore: Springer; 2019. 342 p.
18. Al-Sabbagh M, Bhavsar I. Key local and surgical factors related to implant failure. Dent Clin North Am. 2015;59(1):1-23. DOI: 1016/j. cden.2014. 09.001.
19. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Impact of different surgeons on dental implant failure. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(5):445-54. DOI: 11607/ijp.5151.
20. Avetikov DS, Pronina OM, Lokes KP, Bukhanchenko Suchasni uyavlennya pro umovy, yaki obmezhuyutʹ vybir metodu dentalʹnoyi implantatsiyi na verkhniy i nyzhniy shchelepakh. Vistnyk problem biolohiyi i medytsyny. 2017;4.3(141):20-26. DOI: 10.29254/2077–4214– 2017–4–3–141–20-27. [in Ukrainian]
21. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg Bone quality and quantity and dental implant failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(3):219-37. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5142.
22. de Medeiros F, Kudo GAH, Leme BG, Saraiva PP, Verri FR, Honorio HM, et Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(4):480-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.021.
23. Sendyk DI, Rovai ES, Pannuti CM, Deboni MC, Sendyk WR, Wennerberg A. Dental implant loss in older versus younger patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44(3):229-36. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12465.
24. Pokrowiecki R, Mielczarek A, Zareba T, Tyski S. Oral microbiome and peri-implant diseases: where are we now? Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017;13:1529-42. DOI: 2147/TCRM.S139795.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 1 (168), 2023 year, 291-300 pages, index UDK 616.314-089.843-06-002-022.7-093

10.29254/2077-4214-2023-1-168-291-300