BACKGROUND: The current evidence suggests that the oral microflora differs between individuals who are fully edentulous (FES) and those who are partially edentulous (PES). It is unknown whether this leads to differences in peri-implant microflora when implants are installed. The aim of the study is to compare the submucosal peri-implant microflora between FES and PES. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for publications up to September 1, 2012. To reduce methodologic variations, only studies reporting in the same article about the submucosal peri-implant microflora of FES and PES were selected. RESULTS: Eleven publications describing 10 studies were selected. Because of numerous differences among the selected studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. Six of 10 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, microbiologic results were not unanimous among the studies. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy and peri-implant mucositis conditions, PES harbor a potentially more pathogenic peri-implant microflora than FES. The current data are insufficient for a clear conclusion regarding peri-implantitis cases. Overall, because of the lack of a meta-analysis, the variability in microbiologic outcomes and the limited number of studies available, the current evidence seems not to be robust.
BACKGROUND: The current evidence suggests that the oral microflora differs between individuals who are fully edentulous (FES) and those who are partially edentulous (PES). It is unknown whether this leads to differences in peri-implant microflora when implants are installed. The aim of the study is to compare the submucosal peri-implant microflora between FES and PES. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for publications up to September 1, 2012. To reduce methodologic variations, only studies reporting in the same article about the submucosal peri-implant microflora of FES and PES were selected. RESULTS: Eleven publications describing 10 studies were selected. Because of numerous differences among the selected studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. Six of 10 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, microbiologic results were not unanimous among the studies. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy and peri-implant mucositis conditions, PES harbor a potentially more pathogenic peri-implant microflora than FES. The current data are insufficient for a clear conclusion regarding peri-implantitis cases. Overall, because of the lack of a meta-analysis, the variability in microbiologic outcomes and the limited number of studies available, the current evidence seems not to be robust.
Authors: Deceles Cristina Costa Alves; Paulo Sérgio Perri de Carvalho; Carlos Nelson Elias; Eduardo Vedovatto; Elizabeth Ferreira Martinez Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Mariana Ribeiro de Moraes Rego; Marcelo Ferreira Torres; Luiz Carlos Santiago; Ronaldo Lira-Junior; Eduardo José Veras Lourenço; Daniel de Moraes Telles; Carlos Marcelo Figueredo Journal: J Oral Microbiol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 5.474