Do elderly edentulous patients with a history of periodontitis harbor periodontal pathogens?: Periodontal pathogens in elderly subjects

University of Taubaté, São Paulo, Brazil.
Clinical Oral Implants Research (Impact Factor: 3.43). 06/2010; 21(6):618-623. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01892.x

ABSTRACT The presence of periodontal pathogens in the oral cavity may impact implant survival. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of Campylobacter rectus, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, Eikenella corrodens and Parvimonas micra in a specific elderly population with a history of periodontitis who have never worn dentures.
Thirty dentate subjects (mean age 61.7+/-7.05 years) and 30 edentulous subjects (mean age 65.8+/-8.05 years) were included in this cross-sectional study. Microbiological samples of cheek mucosa and the dorsum of the tongue were taken from all subjects. In addition, sulcus samples were taken from the dentate group. All samples were analysed using a bacterial DNA-specific polymerase chain reaction.
All the pathogens studied were detected in dentate and edentulous subjects. When cheek and tongue samples were combined, C. rectus, A. actinomycetemcomitans and E. corrodens presented with a similar prevalence in both groups, whereas the other species were more prevalent specifically in the dentate group (P<0.05). In dentate subjects, P. intermedia and T. denticola were present in higher frequencies in the cheek mucosa (26.67% and 66.67%, respectively), whereas P. gingivalis and T. forsythia were more prevalent in the tongue samples (26.67% and 56.67%, respectively).
Periodontal pathogens may persist in the oral cavity of edentulous subjects who have had periodontal disease, even 1 year after the extraction of all teeth and in the absence of other hard surfaces in the mouth.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: This study tested the hypotheses that there is: (1) higher bacterial frequency in peri-implantitis/periodontitis, followed by mucositis/gingivitis and peri-implant/periodontal health; (2) similar bacterial frequency between comparable peri-implant and periodontal clinical statuses. DESIGN OF STUDY: The presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Campylobacter rectus, Prevotella intermedia, Treponema denticola and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans was evaluated in peri-implant (n=53) and periodontal (n=53) health; mucositis (n=50), gingivitis (n=50), peri-implantitis (n=50) and periodontitis (n=50). RESULTS: The pattern of peri-implant bacterial frequency was not as expected (peri-implantitis>mucositis>health). Except for P. intermedia (p>0.05), bacterial frequency was higher in peri-implantitis than health (p<0.05). The frequency of P.gingivalis and red complex species were higher in peri-implantitis than mucositis (p<0.05). In periodontal samples, T. forsythia and T. denticola showed the expected pattern of frequency (periodontitis>gingivitis>health). The frequencies of C. rectus and T. forsythia were higher in healthy teeth/gingivitis than healthy implants/mucositis, respectively (p<0.05). The frequency of P. gingivalis and A. actinomycetemcomitans were similar between periodontitis and peri-implantitis (p>0.05) while all other species occurrences were higher in periodontitis than peri-implantitis (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial frequency increased from peri-implant/periodontal health to peri-implantitis/periodontitis but not from mucositis/gingivitis to peri-implantitis/periodontitis. There was a trend towards higher bacterial frequency in teeth than implants.
    Archives of oral biology 11/2012; · 1.65 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The current evidence suggests that the oral microflora differs between fully edentulous (FES) and partially edentulous subjects (PES). It is unknown whether this leads to differences in peri-implant microflora when implants are installed. Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the submocosal peri-implant microflora between FES and PES. Material and methods: A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases were searched for publications up to September 1(st) 2012. To reduce methodological variations only studies reporting in the same article about the submucosal peri-implant microflora of FES and PES were selected. Results: Eleven publications describing ten studies were selected. Due to numerous differences among the selected studies no meta-analysis could be performed. Six out of ten studies showed a significant difference in the composition of the submucosal peri-implant microflora in healthy and peri-implant mucositis conditions between FES and PES, with the latter showing a potentially more pathogenic composition. However, microbiological results were not unanimous among the studies. Conclusion: In healthy and peri-implant mucositis conditions, PES harbor a potentially more pathogenic peri-implant microflora than FES. The currently existing data are insufficient for a clear conclusion regarding peri-implantitis cases. Overall, due to lack of a meta-analysis, the variability in microbiological outcomes and the limited number of studies available, the current evidence seems not te be robust.
    Journal of Periodontology 05/2013; · 2.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although peri-implant bone loss is one of the parameters included in the criteria for determining implant success, its prevention is of vital importance. The goal of this article is to assess the factors that affect peri-implant bone loss.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 06/2014; · 3.12 Impact Factor


Available from
Nov 12, 2014