A Literature Review of Metagenomics and Culturomics of the Peri-implant Microbiome: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: In recent years, many different culture-independent molecular techniques have been developed with the aim of investigating the not yet cultivated part of the resident flora of the oral cavity and of analyzing the peri-implant and periodontal flora both in healthy and diseased sites. The most used technologies are Roche 454 pyrosequencing, Illumina HiSeq/MiSeq, ABI SOLiD and Ion Torrent. Due to these methods, two different approaches are available: Metagenomics and the 16S gene analysis. A complementary strategy was also recently developed: Culturomics. Culturomics consists of different culture conditions that allow a very rapid bacterial identification. The focused question of this review was developed in PICO format in order to investigate the role of metagenomics, 16S gene analysis and culturomics (interventions) in the differential study (comparison) of the peri-implant and periodontal microbiome (outcome) in humans (participants). The secondary aim was the characterization of currents limits and future applications of the three techniques. Methods: The authors performed a literature search on three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed) from 01/01/2003 to 31/06/2019. Date of last search was: 25/08/19. Any type of article dealing with the analysis of periodontal and peri-implant flora with metagenomic, culturomic or 16S gene analysis was included. No language restrictions were applied. Risk of bias for RCT was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool whereas case-control and cohort studies were evaluated through the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results: The initial search resulted in 330 titles in total. After careful evaluation of all results no studies were found to satisfy the primary outcome of the present review. Hence a narrative review dealing with the secondary aim was performed. Conclusions: Metagenomic and 16S gene analysis approaches contributed in clarifying some crucial aspects of the oral microbiome. Based on the reported evidence some bacteria could be found around teeth and implants even in the absence of signs of inflammation and other species are more frequently found in supragingival peri-implant biofilm. Teeth and implants (even if adjacent) seem not to share the same microbiome and healthy teeth have a more diversified one. The same analyses also highlighted that the oral biofilm of smokers is composed by more periodontopathogen bacteria compared to non-smokers and that geographical location and ethnicity seem to play a role in bacterial composition. Culturomics, which has not yet been applied to the study of oral microbiota, consists of the use of different culture conditions and of the identification by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI–TOF MS) with the aim of increasing the bacterial repertoire and avoiding the limits of molecular methods. In order to better evaluate perspectives and limits of the all presented approaches further studies comparing the different molecular techniques are encouraged. This review received no funding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".