Background: Probiotic bacterial supplementation has shown promising results in the treatment of periodontitis and the maintenance of periodontal health.The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the influence of Lactobacillus reuteri or Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis supplementation with and without prebiotic inulin on biofilm composition using an ex vivo biofilm model. Methods: Subgingival plaque specimens from three periodontitis-affected human donors were used to grow biofilms on hydroxyapatite disks in media supplemented with varying combinations of prebiotic inulin, Lactobacillus reuteri, and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis. Relative abundances of bacterial genera present in mature biofilms were evaluated using 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing. Diversity metrics of microbial communities were evaluated using a next-generation microbiome bioinformatics platform. Results: Inulin supplementation produced statistically significant dosedependent increases in relative abundances of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species (p < 0.001) with concomitant decreases in relative abundances of Streptococcus, Veillonella, Fusobacterium, Parvimonas, and Prevotella species (p < 0.001). Inoculation with L. reuteri or B. animalis subsp. lactis increased the relative abundance of only the supplemented probiotic genera (p < 0.05).Supplemental inulin led to a statistically significant decrease in biofilm alpha diversity (p < 0.001). Conclusions:The described ex vivo model appears suitable for investigating the effects of probiotic bacteria, prebiotic oligosaccharides, and combinations thereof on biofilm composition and complexity. Within the limitations imposed by this model, results from the present study underscore the potential for prebiotic inulin to modify biofilm composition favorably. Additional research further elucidating biologic rationale and controlled clinical research defining therapeutic benefits is warranted.
Focused clinical questionWhat factors identify the optimal bone augmentation techniques for managing slight, moderate, and severe horizontal alveolar ridge deficiency (ARD) at dental implant sites?SummaryHorizontal ARD is a concern at a high proportion of sites receiving dental implants, and clinicians have developed a variety of surgical procedures to address such defects. In a particular case, selection of the optimal treatment may depend predominantly on defect severity, location (anterior versus posterior), and configuration (contained versus noncontained). This report provides a framework for selecting an augmentation method when presented with a slight, moderate, or severe horizontal ARD at a site requiring dental implant placement.ConclusionMultiple treatment options are available for planned implant sites exhibiting horizontal ARD; severe posterior and slight anterior defects intuitively call for different approaches. Although rigid guidelines for selecting the optimal augmentation method do not exist, some techniques are poorly suited for esthetically demanding sites. A framework considering defect severity, location, and configuration may help guide clinical decisions on this topic.
Focused Clinical Question Under what circumstances may a clinician consider dental implant placement at a site exhibiting a focal high or mixed density (HMD) osseous lesion radiologically? Summary Some conditions and pathologic entities exhibiting high and mixed density radiological appearance pose low risk for dental implant failure or complications following implant surgery. However, other lesions represent contraindications to implant placement, and implant surgery at such sites can result in severe morbidity. Conclusion Potential implant sites exhibiting focal HMD osseous lesions/conditions present varying levels of risk. In most cases, optimal management will include advanced imaging of the site, multidisciplinary consultations, and detailed informed consent to assure full understanding of procedural risks, benefits, and complications. Currently, clinical recommendations rely on case reports, opinion, and usual practice (level 3 evidence). The strength of each recommendation provided in this report is categorized as level C.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.