ISSN 2415-3060 (print), ISSN 2522-4972 (online)
JMBS
  • 32 of 44
Up
JMBS 2019, 4(2): 214–219
https://doi.org/10.26693/jmbs04.02.214
Dentistry

Composition of Microflora of Different Oral Cavity Biotops in Persons with Partial Secondary Adentia

Slynko Yu. O., Mishina M. M., Sokolova І. І.
Abstract

One of the most populated habitats is the human cavity. Many researchers indicate the direct connection of certain types of bacteria or phylotypes with various diseases of the oral cavity. At the same time there is not so much information about the bacterial spectrum of the oral cavity and the state of its health. Therefore, the replenishment of knowledge about the breadth of bacterial diversity, the definition of the specificity of bacterial colonization in the oral cavity of a healthy person is a problematic direction of research both in dentistry and in microbiology. The purpose of this work was to study the peculiarities of microorganisms of various biotops of the oral cavity in somatically healthy patients with partial secondary adenia at the stage of dental implantation surgery planning. Material and methods. We conducted a microbiological study of clinical material, isolated from 25 somatically healthy patients with partial secondary adenia without signs of mucosal diseases of the oral cavity and periodontal tissues. The material was taken from three sites: gingival mucosa, cheek mucous membrane along the closure of the teeth and dorsal tongue surface. Results and discussion. The obtained results showed that bacteria exhibited a certain specific tropism in relation to various anatomical areas of the oral cavity, which coincided with the opinion of other researchers. We also noted that the level of bacterial insemination of the mucous membrane of different biotops was significantly different: the highest density of microorganisms was found on the dorsal surface of the tongue, which in the case of gram-positive flora exaggerated the density of bacteria on the mucous membrane of the gums and cheeks by 1.7 and 2.4 times (p <0.001), respectively; in the case of gram-negative flora it exaggerated the density of bacteria on the mucous membrane of the gums and cheeks by 1.6 and 2.6 times, respectively (p <0.001); in the case of fungi of the genus Candida it exaggerated the density of bacteria on the mucous membrane of the gums and cheeks by 1.7 and 1.9 times. The largest group of microorganisms in the selected contingent of patients occupied coca, where the genus Streptococcus predominated. The latter is the main flora resident of the oral cavity biotope. But the existence of opportunistic and pathogenic species in the selected biotopes can be considered a tendency to form a dysbiotic reaction. Conclusions. The results of our study showed that soft tissues of the oral cavity, especially the dorsal surface of the tongue, are the location of the huge amount of microbial mass and are the source of potential recolonization of any biotope of the oral cavity, which in turn may negatively affect the results of dental manipulations conducted in the selected contingent of patients. Prospects for further research will relate to the feasibility of studying the adhesiveness of isolated strains and their ability to colonize.

Keywords: microorganisms, partial secondary adentia, mucous membrane, biotops of the oral cavity

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 263K

References
  1. Bilʹko IP. Vymohy do vzyattya ta dostavky materialu dlya mikrobiolohichnykh doslidzhenʹ. Suchasni infektsiyi. 2001; 3: 106-9. [Ukrainian]
  2. Hlazunov OA, Fesenko VI. Suchasni pohlyady na patohenez kandydozu (ohlyad literatury). Visnyk stomatolohiyi. 2013; 4: 110-5. [Ukrainian]
  3. Levitskiy AP. Fiziologicheskaya mikrobnaya sistema polosti rta. Vísnik stomatologíí̈. 2007; 1: 6-11. [Russian]
  4. Safarov AM. Mikrobnaya obsemenonnost' polosti rta pri noshenii s"yomnykh zubnikh protezov na osnove razlichnykh materialov. Sovremennaya stomatologiya. 2010; 2: 103-5. [Russian]
  5. Stepanova TY, Timofeyeva AV. Mikrobiom rotovoy polosti cheloveka. Sovremennyye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya. 2016; 5. Available from: http://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=25212. [Russian]
  6. Toncheva KD, Korol' DM, Kindiy DM, Kindiy VD, Yarkovoy VV, Korobeynikov LS. Bioplenka v stomatologi. Stomatologicheskaya nauka i praktika. 2015; 5 (10): 36 -4. [Russian]
  7. Beikler T, Flemmig TF. Oral biofilm-associated diseases: trends and implications for quality of life, systemic health and expenditures. Periodontology 2000. 2011; 55(1): 87-103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21134230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2010.00360.x
  8. Brandtzaeg P. Homeostatic impact of indigenous microbiota and secretory immunity. Beneficial microbes. 2010; 1(3): 211-27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21831758. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2010.0009
  9. Cumming D, Marsh PD. Changing the paradigm of daily prevention to achieve whole mouth health in the 21st century. J Clin Dent. 2018; 3(29, Spec Iss A): 1-9.
  10. Darveau RP. Periodontitis: a polymicrobial disruption of host homeostasis. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2010; 8: 481-90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20514045. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2337
  11. Yang F, Zeng X, Ning K, Liu KL, Lo CC, Wang W, et al. Saliva microbiomes distinguish caries-active from healthy human populations. ISME J. 2012; 6(1): 1-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716312. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3246229. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.71
  12. Huttenhower C, Gevers D, Knight R, Abubucker S, Badger JH, et. al.. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2012; 486(402): 207-14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22699609. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3564958. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11234
  13. Kort R, Martien Caspers M, van de Graaf A, van Egmond W, Keijser B, Roeselers G. Shaping the oral microbiota through intimate kissing. Microbiome. 2014; 2: 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-2-41
  14. Mager DL, Jimenez-Theby LA, Haffaji AD, Socransky SS. Distribution of certain types of bacteria on intraoral surfaces. J Clin Periodontol. 2003; 30(7): 644-54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12834503. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.00376.x
  15. Marchi-Alves LM, Freitas D, Andrade D, Godoy S, Toneti AN, Costa-Mendes IA. Characterization of Oral Microbiota in Removable Dental Prosthesis Users: Influence of Arterial Hypertension. BioMed Research International. 2017; 2017: 3838640. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28713826. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5497639. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3838640
  16. Saini R, Saini S, Sharma S. Biofilm: A dental microbial infection. J Nat Sc Biol Med. 2011; 2(1): 71-5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22470238. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3312703. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-9668.82317
  17. Sbordone L, Bortolaia L. Oral microbial biofilms and plaque-related diseases: microbial communities and their role in the shift from oral health to disease. Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7(4): 181-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14598129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0236-1
  18. Tanner AC, Kent R Jr, Kanasi E, Lu SC, Paster BJ, Sonis ST, et al. Clinical characteristics and microbiota of progressing slight chronic periodontitis in adults. J Clin Periodontol. 2007; 11(34): 917-30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17877747. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01126.x
  19. Zaura E, Keijser B JF, Huse SM, Crielaard W. Defining the healthy "core microbiome" of oral microbial communities. BMC Microbiology. 2009; 9: 259. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20003481. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2805672. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-9-259