Clinical, immunological and microbiological evaluation of experimental peri‐implant mucositis and gingivitis in subjects with Grade C, stage III/IV periodontitis background

Abstract

AbstractAimTo compare individuals with a periodontitis background (Grade C, stage III/IV—formerly generalized aggressive periodontitis) (H‐GAP) with periodontally healthy subjects (H‐Health) in terms of molecular changes (immunological/microbiological) accompanying experimental peri‐implant mucositis and gingivitis.Materials and MethodsH‐GAP and control (H‐Health) subjects were recruited, and experimental mucositis/gingivitis was induced around a single screw‐retained implant and one contralateral tooth. Participants refrained from oral hygiene for 21 days in the selected areas, followed by professional prophylaxis and hygiene instructions for 21 days. Clinical parameters, immunological markers (multiplex analysis) and microbial data (16S rRNA gene sequencing) were collected at baseline, during induction (7, 14 and 21 days) and following remission (42 days).ResultsClinically, no significant differences were observed between the groups (n = 10/each group) (H‐GAP vs. H‐Health) (p > .05, Mann–Whitney test) and the type of site (tooth vs. implant) (p > .05, Wilcoxon test) at the time of onset and resolution, or severity of gingival/mucosal inflammation. H‐GAP displayed lower concentrations of the cytokines interleukin (IL)‐1B, IL‐4, IL‐17, tumor necrosis factor‐α and interferon‐γ around implants than H‐Health at baseline and during induction of mucositis (p < .05, Mann–Whitney test). In both groups, implants showed significantly higher inflammatory background at baseline and all subsequent visits when compared with teeth (p < .05, Wilcoxon test). Alpha and β‐diversity metrics showed a significant shift in the microbiome composition and abundances of core species during induction and resolution of peri‐implant mucositis and gingivitis (p < .05, restricted maximum likelihood method of Shannon and Bray–Curtis indices, respectively). Differences were not significant for these parameters between the H‐Health and H‐GAP groups when the periodontal and peri‐implant microbiomes were compared separately; however, at each time point, the peri‐implant microbiome differed significantly from the periodontal microbiome.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this pilot study (e.g. low power), it can be concluded that different microbial shifts contribute to the onset and progression of inflammatory responses around teeth and implants and that history of periodontal disease experience plays an additional role in modulating the immune response of peri‐implant and periodontal tissues to biofilm accumulation.