D Belstrøm1, P Holmstrup1, N-E Fiehn2, K Rosing1, A Bardow3, B J Paster4,5, A M Lynge Pedersen3. 1. Section 1, Periodontology, Oral Microbiology, and Community Dentistry, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Immunology & Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Section 1, Oral Medicine, Clinical Oral Physiology, Oral Anatomy and Pathology, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Microbiology, The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA. 5. Department of Oral Medicine, Infection & Immunity, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the microbiota of stimulated whole saliva samples from patients with severe hyposalivation to samples from individuals with normal whole saliva flow rates. It was hypothesized that the two groups differ with regard to salivary bacterial profiles. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 36 participants (24 females and 12 males, mean age 58.5 years) with severe hyposalivation and 36 gender-, age-, and geographically matched participants with normal salivary secretion from the Danish Health Examination Survey (DANHES). The microbiota of stimulated whole saliva samples was characterized by HOMINGS. RESULTS: The two groups had comparable caries experience measured by decayed, missed, filled surfaces/teeth and decayed, missed, filled root surfaces as well as active caries lesions. In addition, no single probe target was present with a significant difference in frequency or proportional presence between groups. Furthermore, data reduction by principal component analysis and correspondence analysis showed comparable bacterial community profiles between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the salivary bacterial profiles of patients with severe hyposalivation do not differ from those of individuals with normal salivary secretion, when there are virtually no untreated active caries lesions present in the oral cavity.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the microbiota of stimulated whole saliva samples from patients with severe hyposalivation to samples from individuals with normal whole saliva flow rates. It was hypothesized that the two groups differ with regard to salivary bacterial profiles. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 36 participants (24 females and 12 males, mean age 58.5 years) with severe hyposalivation and 36 gender-, age-, and geographically matched participants with normal salivary secretion from the Danish Health Examination Survey (DANHES). The microbiota of stimulated whole saliva samples was characterized by HOMINGS. RESULTS: The two groups had comparable caries experience measured by decayed, missed, filled surfaces/teeth and decayed, missed, filled root surfaces as well as active caries lesions. In addition, no single probe target was present with a significant difference in frequency or proportional presence between groups. Furthermore, data reduction by principal component analysis and correspondence analysis showed comparable bacterial community profiles between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the salivary bacterial profiles of patients with severe hyposalivation do not differ from those of individuals with normal salivary secretion, when there are virtually no untreated active caries lesions present in the oral cavity.
Authors: Vincent P Richards; Andres J Alvarez; Amy R Luce; Molly Bedenbaugh; Mary Lyn Mitchell; Robert A Burne; Marcelle M Nascimento Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Ignacio Sanz-Martin; Janet Doolittle-Hall; Ricardo P Teles; Michele Patel; Georgios N Belibasakis; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Flavia R F Teles Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Harim Tavares Dos Santos; Kihoon Nam; Jason P Hunt; Luke O Buchmann; Marcus M Monroe; Olga J Baker Journal: J Histochem Cytochem Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: D Belstrøm; M L Sembler-Møller; M A Grande; N Kirkby; S L Cotton; B J Paster; S Twetman; P Holmstrup Journal: JDR Clin Trans Res Date: 2017-07-31