Pre-treatment oral microbiome analysis and salivary Stephan curve kinetics in white spot lesion development in orthodontic patients wearing fixed appliances. A pilot study.
Microbiome
Saliva pH
White spot lesion
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 04 2023
24 04 2023
Historique:
received:
08
11
2022
accepted:
28
03
2023
medline:
26
4
2023
pubmed:
25
4
2023
entrez:
24
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
White spot lesions (WSLs) are a formidable challenge during orthodontic treatment, affecting patients regardless of oral hygiene. Multifactorial in nature, amongst potential contributors to their development are the microbiome and salivary pH. The aim of our pilot study is to determine if pre-treatment differences in salivary Stephan curve kinetics and salivary microbiome features correlate with WSL development in orthodontic patients with fixed appliances. We hypothesize that non-oral hygiene determined differences in saliva could be predictive of WSL formation in this patient population through analysis of salivary Stephan curve kinetics, and that these differences would further manifest as changes in the oral microbiome. In this prospective cohort study, twenty patients with initial simplified oral hygiene index scores of "good" that were planning to undergo orthodontic treatment with self-ligating fixed appliances for at least 12 months were enrolled. At pre-treatment stage, saliva was collected for microbiome analysis, and at 15-minute intervals after a sucrose rinse over 45 min for Stephan curve kinetics. 50% of patients developed a mean 5.7 (SEM: 1.2) WSLs. There were no differences in saliva microbiome species richness, Shannon alpha diversity or beta diversity between the groups. Capnocytophaga sputigena exclusively and Prevotella melaninogenica predominantly were found in WSL patients, while Streptococcus australis was negatively correlated with WSL development. Streptococcus mitis and Streptococcus anginosus were primarily present in healthy patients. There was no evidence to support the primary hypothesis. While there were no differences in salivary pH or restitution kinetics following a sucrose challenge and no global microbial differences in WSL developers, our data showed change in salivary pH at 5 min associated with an abundance of acid-producing bacteria in saliva. The results suggest salivary pH modulation as a management strategy to inhibit the abundance of caries initiators. Our study may have uncovered the earliest predecessors to WSL/caries development.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
White spot lesions (WSLs) are a formidable challenge during orthodontic treatment, affecting patients regardless of oral hygiene. Multifactorial in nature, amongst potential contributors to their development are the microbiome and salivary pH. The aim of our pilot study is to determine if pre-treatment differences in salivary Stephan curve kinetics and salivary microbiome features correlate with WSL development in orthodontic patients with fixed appliances. We hypothesize that non-oral hygiene determined differences in saliva could be predictive of WSL formation in this patient population through analysis of salivary Stephan curve kinetics, and that these differences would further manifest as changes in the oral microbiome.
METHODS
In this prospective cohort study, twenty patients with initial simplified oral hygiene index scores of "good" that were planning to undergo orthodontic treatment with self-ligating fixed appliances for at least 12 months were enrolled. At pre-treatment stage, saliva was collected for microbiome analysis, and at 15-minute intervals after a sucrose rinse over 45 min for Stephan curve kinetics.
RESULTS
50% of patients developed a mean 5.7 (SEM: 1.2) WSLs. There were no differences in saliva microbiome species richness, Shannon alpha diversity or beta diversity between the groups. Capnocytophaga sputigena exclusively and Prevotella melaninogenica predominantly were found in WSL patients, while Streptococcus australis was negatively correlated with WSL development. Streptococcus mitis and Streptococcus anginosus were primarily present in healthy patients. There was no evidence to support the primary hypothesis.
CONCLUSIONS
While there were no differences in salivary pH or restitution kinetics following a sucrose challenge and no global microbial differences in WSL developers, our data showed change in salivary pH at 5 min associated with an abundance of acid-producing bacteria in saliva. The results suggest salivary pH modulation as a management strategy to inhibit the abundance of caries initiators. Our study may have uncovered the earliest predecessors to WSL/caries development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37095478
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-02917-z
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-02917-z
pmc: PMC10127078
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
239Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec;5(6):433-9
pubmed: 26759794
Caries Res. 2005 Jan-Feb;39(1):41-7
pubmed: 15591733
Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2009 Apr;24(2):89-95
pubmed: 19239634
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008 Spring;32(3):195-200
pubmed: 18524268
Br Dent J. 2021 Dec;231(12):749-753
pubmed: 34921271
Odontology. 2013 Jan;101(1):2-8
pubmed: 23224410
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 May;139(5):657-64
pubmed: 21536209
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20956
pubmed: 21738596
Braz Oral Res. 2015;29:
pubmed: 25715032
J Appl Oral Sci. 2014 Jan-Feb;22(1):38-43
pubmed: 24626247
J Dent Res. 2012 Jun;91(6):544-50
pubmed: 22529242
Scientifica (Cairo). 2016;2016:5027283
pubmed: 27051556
Eur J Oral Sci. 2010 Oct;118(5):466-74
pubmed: 20831580
J Oral Microbiol. 2014 Oct 24;6:25443
pubmed: 25626770
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 May;101(5):403-7
pubmed: 1590288
Angle Orthod. 2011 Mar;81(2):206-10
pubmed: 21208070
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3
pubmed: 27214047
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47722
pubmed: 23091642
Br Dent J. 1992 Apr 25;172(8):305-12
pubmed: 1591115
Aust Dent J. 2013 Jun;58(2):133-40; quiz 266
pubmed: 23713631
Am J Orthod. 1974 Sep;66(3):273-9
pubmed: 4528489
Front Microbiol. 2014 Oct 13;5:508
pubmed: 25352835
Eur J Orthod. 2013 Oct;35(5):664-8
pubmed: 23045306
Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1990 Jan;40(1):19-27
pubmed: 1699594
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Apr;46(4):1407-17
pubmed: 18216213
Contemp Clin Dent. 2014 Oct;5(4):440-4
pubmed: 25395756
J Oral Microbiol. 2016 Oct 26;8:32940
pubmed: 27790973
J Dent Res. 2016 Jan;95(1):80-6
pubmed: 26442950
J Am Dent Assoc. 1964 Jan;68:7-13
pubmed: 14076341
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010 Nov 01;15(6):e924-9
pubmed: 20383105
J Periodontal Res. 2012 Feb;47(1):95-104
pubmed: 21895662
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018 May-Jun;11(3):177-182
pubmed: 30131637
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006 Apr;56(Pt 4):695-702
pubmed: 16585679
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Jan;93(1):29-37
pubmed: 3276146
Angle Orthod. 2013 Jul;83(4):641-7
pubmed: 23289733
Eur J Dent. 2015 Jan-Mar;9(1):127-132
pubmed: 25713496
Microb Ecol. 2014 May;67(4):962-9
pubmed: 24504329
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 28;9(2):e89269
pubmed: 24586647
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 May;40(5):1698-704
pubmed: 11980945
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2017;15(5):453-459
pubmed: 28785747
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Oct;42(10):4891-2
pubmed: 15472374
Genome Biol. 2011 Jun 24;12(6):R60
pubmed: 21702898
J Conserv Dent. 2012 Apr;15(2):104-8
pubmed: 22557804
Am J Orthod. 1982 Feb;81(2):93-8
pubmed: 6758594
J Dent Res. 2012 Sep;91(9):853-8
pubmed: 22837552
J Oral Microbiol. 2018 Jul 03;10(1):1476645
pubmed: 29988826
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Oct;34(5):633-9
pubmed: 21750245
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2014 Apr 01;5(1):e4
pubmed: 24800054
BMC Oral Health. 2019 Jan 14;19(1):13
pubmed: 30642327
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Jul;140(1):e17-24
pubmed: 21724067
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Jul 23;11(8):
pubmed: 34441259
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Aug;138(2):188-94
pubmed: 20691360