Microbiota in experimental periodontitis and peri-implantitis in dogs

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research 2014-09, Vol.25 (9), p.1094-1098
• Main Authors: Charalampakis, Georgios, Abrahamsson, Ingemar, Carcuac, Olivier, Dahlén, Gunnar, Berglundh, Tord
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss - microbiology; animal experiment; Animals; bacter; Biopsy; checkerboard; dental implant; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dentistry; Disease Models, Animal; Disease Progression; Dogs; Implants, Experimental; infection; inflammation; Ligation; Microbiology in the medical area; Mikrobiologi inom det medicinska området; Odontologi; peri-implant disease; Peri-Implantitis - microbiology; periodontal disease; Periodontitis - microbiology; Surface Properties
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12235

Aim To analyze the microbial profile around teeth and implants following ligature removal in experimental periodontitis and peri‐implantitis in dogs. Material and methods Four implants with similar geometry and with two different surface characteristics (implant A: turned/implant B: TiUnite; NobelBiocare AB) were placed pairwise in the right side of the mandible 3 months after tooth extraction in five dogs. Experimental periodontitis and peri‐implantitis were initiated 3 months later by ligature placement around implants and mandibular premolars and plaque formation. The ligatures were removed after 10 weeks. Microbial samples were obtained using paper points immediately after ligature removal, at 10 and 25 weeks after ligature removal. The microbiological analysis was performed by “checkerboard” DNA‐DNA hybridization, including a panel of 16 bacterial species. Results The amount of bone loss that occurred during the period following ligature removal was significantly larger at implants with a modified surface than at implants with a turned surface and at teeth. The microbiological analysis revealed that the total bacterial load increased during the period following ligature removal and established an anaerobic Gram‐negative microflora. Conclusion It is suggested that the large variation in regard to the microbial profiles makes interpretation of a correlation between disease progression and microbial profiles difficult.