| Literature DB >> 32466124 |
Yoko Uchida-Fukuhara1,2,3, Daisuke Ekuni4, Md Monirul Islam4, Kota Kataoka2,4, Ayano Taniguchi-Tabata1, Daiki Fukuhara1, Naoki Toyama4, Terumasa Kobayashi4, Kohei Fujimori4, Nanami Sawada4, Yoshiaki Iwasaki5, Manabu Morita4.
Abstract
The purpose of this 3-year prospective cohort study was to explore the relationship between an increase in dental caries and oral microbiome among Japanese university students. We analyzed 487 students who volunteered to receive oral examinations and answer baseline (2013) and follow-up (2016) questionnaires. Of these students, salivary samples were randomly collected from 55 students at follow-up and analyzed using next-generation sequencing. Students were divided into two groups: increased group (Δdecayed, missing, and filled teeth (ΔDMFT) score increased during the 3-year period) and non-increased group (ΔDMFT did not increase). Thirteen phyla, 21 classes, 32 orders, 48 families, 72 genera, and 156 species were identified. Microbial diversity in the increased group (n = 14) was similar to that in the non-increased group (n = 41). Relative abundances of the family Prevotellaceae (p = 0.007) and genera Alloprevotella (p = 0.007) and Dialister (p = 0.039) were enriched in the increased group compared with the non-increased group. Some bacterial taxonomic clades were differentially present between the two groups. These results may contribute to the development of new dental caries prevention strategies, including the development of detection kits and enlightenment activities for these bacteria.Entities:
Keywords: dental caries; oral health; saliva; salivary microbiome; sequence analysis; young adult
Year: 2020 PMID: 32466124 PMCID: PMC7277743 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flowchart of study participants. This flowchart shows the process for selecting analyzed participants. At baseline, 2187 students received the oral examination. Because follow-up oral examination was not mandatory, only 487 students received a second oral examination. Of these students, 55 students were randomized and consented to saliva collection.
Oral condition and health behaviors in total and selected participants at baseline.
| Variable | Total Participants | Selected Participants | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||||
| Baseline | Gender | Male/Female | 149/144 (50.9/49.1) 1 | 17/38 (30.9/69.1) | 0.006 |
| Age (year) | 18.22 ± 0.76 2 | 18.24 ± 0.47 | 0.378 | ||
| Number of teeth present | 28.49 ± 1.43 | 28.42 ± 1.49 | 0.699 | ||
| DMFT score | 1.00 ± 2.01 | 1.44 ± 2.79 | 0.459 | ||
| DI-S | 0.41 ± 0.37 | 0.33 ± 0.32 | 0.363 | ||
| Daily frequency of tooth brushing | 1 | 55 (18.8) | 9 (16.4) | 0.914 | |
| 2 | 212 (72.4) | 41 (74.5) | |||
| 3 | 26 (8.9) | 5 (9.1) | |||
| Use of dental floss | yes | 20 (6.8) | 5 (9.1) | 0.551 | |
| Regular dental check-ups | yes | 36 (12.3) | 13 (23.6) | 0.034 | |
| Follow-up | Number of teeth present | 29.2 ± 1.77 | 28.9 ± 1.78 | 0.353 | |
| DMFT score | 1.70 ± 2.99 | 1.82 ± 2.97 | 0.477 | ||
| DI-S | 0.81 ± 2.49 | 0.31 ± 0.36 | 0.037 | ||
| Daily frequency of tooth brushing | 1 | 45 (15.4) | 8 (14.5) | 0.323 | |
| 2 | 220 (75.1) | 38 (69.1) | |||
| 3 | 28 (9.6) | 9 (16.4) | |||
| Use of dental floss | yes | 45 (15.4) | 12 (21.8) | 0.237 | |
| Regular dental check-ups | yes | 41 (14.0) | 11 (20.0) | 0.301 | |
| Current smoker | yes | 9 (3.07) | 2 (3.36) | ||
| Use of fluoride containing paste | yes | 155 (52.9) | 28 (50.9) | 0.883 | |
| Knowledge of the effectiveness of fluoride | yes | 250 (85.3) | 46 (83.6) | 0.686 | |
| Frequency of sweet intake (daily) | 0 | 53 (18.1) | 8 (14.5) | 0.295 | |
| 1 | 163 (55.6) | 37 (67.3) | |||
| 2 | 56 (19.1) | 9 (16.4) | |||
| 3 | 21 (7.2) | 1 (1.8) | |||
DMFT, decayed, missing, and filled teeth score; DI-S, debris index-simplified index; 1 Data are expressed as n (%); 2 Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation; 3 Fisher’s exact test or Mann–Whitney U test.
Differences in dental caries-related variables between increased and non-increased groups.
| Variable | Total Participants( | Selected Participants( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-Increased | Increased | Non-Increased | Increased | |||||
| ( | ( | ( | ( | |||||
| Baseline | Number of teeth present | 28.37 ± 0.37 1 | 28.82 ± 1.65 | 0.017 | 28.27 ± 1.28 | 28.86 ± 1.95 | 0.127 | |
| DMFT score | 0.78 ± 0.12 | 1.68 ± 2.35 | <0.001 | 1.32 ± 2.64 | 1.79 ± 3.28 | 0.71 | ||
| DI-S | 0.38 ± 0.35 | 0.52 ± 0.42 | 0.008 | 0.33 ± 0.29 | 0.43 ± 0.41 | 0.619 | ||
| Daily frequency of tooth brushing | 1 | 38 (17.3) 2 | 17 (23.3) | 0.452 | 8 (19.5) | 1 (7.1) | 0.504 | |
| 2 | 161 (73.2) | 51 (69.9) | 29 (65.9) | 12 (85.7) | ||||
| 3 | 21 (9.5) | 5 (6.8) | 4 (9.8) | 1 (7.1) | ||||
| Use of dental floss | yes | 15 (6.8) | 5 (6.8) | 0.993 | 2 (4.9) | 3 (21.4) | 0.063 | |
| Regular dental check-ups | yes | 23 (10.5) | 13 (17.8) | 0.097 | 9 (22) | 4 (28.6) | 0.615 | |
| Follow-up | Number of teeth present | 29.22 ± 1.77 | 29.36 ± 1.82 | 0.323 | 28.78 ± 1.74 | 29.29 ± 1.93 | 0.371 | |
| DMFT score | 0.78 ± 0.12 | 4.26 ± 3.98 | <0.001 | 1.32 ± 2.64 | 3.28 ± 3.49 | <0.001 | ||
| DI-S | 0.94 ± 2.87 | 0.43 ± 0.42 | 0.932 | 0.33 ± 0.37 | 0.27 ± 0.37 | 0.372 | ||
| Daily frequency of tooth brushing | 1 | 12 (15.4) | 34 (15.4) | 0.522 | 7 (17.8) | 1 (7.1) | 0.522 | |
| 2 | 61 (78.2) | 164 (73.9) | 27 (65.9) | 11 (78.6) | ||||
| 3 | 5 (6.4) | 24 (10.8) | 7 (17.1) | 2 (14.3) | ||||
| Use of dental floss | yes | 30 (13.6) | 15 (20.5) | 0.156 | 8 (19.5) | 4 (28.6) | 0.479 | |
| Regular dental check-ups | yes | 29 (13.2) | 12 (16.4) | 0.487 | 8 (19.5) | 3 (21.4) | 0.877 | |
| Current smoker | yes | 7 (3.2) | 2 (2.7) | 0.982 | 1 (2.4) | 1 (7.1) | 0.448 | |
| Use of fluoride containing paste | yes | 116 (52.7) | 39 (53.4) | 0.918 | 18 (43.9) | 10 (71.4) | 0.075 | |
| Knowledge of the effectiveness of fluoride | yes | 182 (82.7) | 68 (93.2) | 0.029 | 34 (82.9) | 12 (85.7) | 0.808 | |
| Frequency of sweet intake (daily) | 0 | 41 (18.6) | 12 (16.4) | 0.769 | 7 (17.1) | 1 (7.1) | 0.693 | |
| 1 | 124 (56.4) | 39 (53.4) | 29 (63.4) | 11 (78.6) | ||||
| 2 | 39 (17.7) | 17 (23.3) | 7 (17.1) | 2 (14.3) | ||||
| 3 | 16 (7.3) | 5 (6.8) | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
The increased group was defined as ΔDMFT > 0 during the 3-year follow-up period; The non-increased group was defined as ΔDMFT = 0 during the 3-year follow-up period; DMFT: decayed, missing, and filled teeth; DI-S, debris index-simplified. 1 Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. 2 Data are expressed as n (%). 3 Fisher’s exact test or Mann–Whitney U test.
Figure 2Comparison of the oral microbiome diversity between increased and non-increased groups. (a) Saliva microbiome diversity between increased (red) and non-increased groups (blue) was compared. Alpha diversity metrics for Simpson, Shannon, Chao1, and ACE indices were calculated and illustrated by box plots. There were no significant differences in diversity between increased and non-increased groups (t-test, p ≥ 0.05). (b) Rarefaction curves of increased (red) and non-increased (blue) groups based on the observed operational taxonomic unit (OTU). There were no significant differences in species richness between increased and non-increased groups (t-test, p ≥ 0.05). (c) Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) based on the Bray–Curtis index. Increased (red) and non-increased (blue) groups did not tend to separate.
Comparison of relative abundances of bacteria between increased and non-increased groups.
| Taxonomy Level | Non-Increased | Increased | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | |||
| Phylum |
| 10.5 ±7.8 1 | 12.2 ± 4.3 | 0.029 |
| Family |
| 1.6 ± 1.6 | 2.6 ± 2 | 0.007 |
| Genera |
| 1.6 ± 1.6 | 2.6 ± 2 | 0.007 |
|
| 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 0.039 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.008 | |
| Species |
| 2.3 ± 2.8 | 3 ± 2.5 | 0.042 |
|
| 1.1 ± 1.3 | 1.7 ± 1.7 | 0.009 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 0.037 | |
|
| 0.3 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 0.037 | |
|
| 0.3 ± 0.5 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | 0.001 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.031 | |
|
| 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.7 ± 1 | 0.034 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.024 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 0.032 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.015 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.019 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.008 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.042 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.2 | 0.014 | |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.021 | |
1 Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation; 2 Mann–Whitney U test.
Figure 3Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis to identify unique taxa associated with caries. Taxa at the family level were analyzed. Red areas of the cladogram were enriched in the increased group compared with the non-increased group. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores ≥ 3.0 are shown.