Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 15;10(8):152.
doi: 10.3390/dj10080152.

Differences in Supragingival Microbiome in Patients with and without Full-Crown Prostheses

Manli Guo  1 , Zhidong Zhang  2 , Jiyuan Lu  2 , Di Wang  2 , Yimin Yan  2 , Shen Zhang  2 , Xin Yu  2 , Songhua Su  2 , Lu Yuan  2 , Zhige Li  2   3 , Baoping Zhang  2   3
Affiliations

Differences in Supragingival Microbiome in Patients with and without Full-Crown Prostheses

Manli Guo et al. Dent J (Basel). .

Abstract

Objectives: To characterize the microflora profile of supragingival biofilm in patients with and without full-crown prostheses. Methods: Plaque samples of full-crown prostheses and teeth in patients with porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, all-ceramic crowns, and no prostheses were collected (three patients per group), using 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing technology to conduct DNA sequencing on the samples and using Qiime, R, and PICRUSt2 software to perform bioinformatics analyses and functional analyses on sequencing data. Results: In total, 110,209 valid sequences were obtained in the experiment, corresponding to 11 phyla and 120 genera. The predominant species shared by the three groups were phyla Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, and Proteobacteria and genera Rothia, Porphyromonas, Prevotella, Streptococcus, Veillonella, Leptotrichia, Neisseria, Citrobacter, and Pseudomonas. The species-difference analysis showed that genus Hameophilus significantly increased after the patient wore the dental prosthesis. Compared with the no-prosthesis samples, the functional analysis showed that cell motility increased in the samples from full-crown prostheses, while replication and repair, and translation decreased. Conclusions: This study reveals the changes in the oral microbial community of patients with full-crown prostheses, which could provide insights regarding the safety of materials for long-term use in the oral cavity.

Keywords: 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing; community structure; full-crown prosthesis; oral microorganism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Experimental flow chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Venn diagram of the 3 groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Histogram of species abundance at phylum (a) and genus (c) levels and heat map of species abundance at phylum (b) and genus (d) levels.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Beta-diversity analysis of the samples performed using the Principal Co-ordinates Analysis based on the unweighted Unifrac distance (a) and the weighted Unifrac distance (b). The more similar the community composition of the samples was, the closer their distance in the PCoA diagram is.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Species-difference analysis of different groups. (a,c,e) Colors represent different groups. The red nodes in the branches represent microbial groups that play an important role in the red groups, and the green nodes represent microbial groups that play an important role in the green groups. Yellow nodes represent microbial taxa that did not play a significant role in either group. (b,d,f) The LDA value distribution diagram of the different species, the LDA value distribution histogram shows the species whose LDA Score is greater than the set value (the default setting is 2), that is, the Biomarker with statistical difference between groups. The length of the histogram represents the effect size of the different species.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Function-predictive analysis of different groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. McBain A.J., O’Neill C.A., Amezquita A., Price L.J., Faust K., Tett A., Segata N., Swann J.R., Smith A.M., Murphy B., et al. Consumer Safety Considerations of Skin and Oral Microbiome Perturbation. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2019;32:e00051-19. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00051-19. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lamont R.J., Koo H., Hajishengallis G. The oral microbiota: Dynamic communities and host interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018;16:745–759. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0089-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith V.H., Pippin D.J. Implications of resource-ratio theory for oral microbial ecology. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 1998;106:605–615. doi: 10.1046/j.0909-8836..t01-4-.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freire M., Nelson K.E., Edlund A. The oral host-microbial interactome: An ecological chronometer of health? Trends Microbiol. 2021;29:551–561. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2020.11.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bowen W.H., Burne R.A., Wu H., Koo H. Oral biofilms: Pathogens, matrix, and polymicrobial interactions in microenvironments. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26:229–242. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2017.09.008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources