Impact of surface characteristics on the peri‐implant microbiome in health and disease

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundBecause little is known about the impact of implant surface modifications on the peri‐implant microbiome, we aimed to examine peri‐implant communities in various surface types in order to better understand the impact of these surfaces on the development of peri‐implantitis (PI).MethodsOne hundred and six systemically healthy individuals with anodized (AN), hydroxyapatite‐coated (HA), or sandblasted acid‐etched (SLA) implants that were >6 months in function were recruited and categorized into health (H) or PI. Peri‐implant biofilm was analyzed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and compared between health/disease and HA/SLA/AN using community‐level and taxa‐level metrics.ResultsHealthy implants did not demonstrate significant differences in clustering, alpha‐ or beta‐diversity based on surface modification. AN and HA surfaces displayed significant differences between health and PI (p < 0.05); however, such a clustering was not evident with SLA (p > 0.05). AN and HA surfaces also differed in the magnitude and diversity of differences between health and PI. Six species belonging to the genera Shuttleworthia, Scardovia, and Prevotella demonstrated lower abundances in AN implants with PI, and 18 species belonging to the genera Fretibacterium, Tannerella, Treponema, and Fusobacterium were elevated, while in HA implants with PI, 20 species belonging to the genera Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, Veillonella, Rothia, and family Ruminococcaceae were depleted and Peptostreptococcaceae, Atopobiaceae, Veillonellaceae, Porphyromonadaceae, Desulfobulbaceae, and order Synergistales were enriched.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, we demonstrate that implant surface can differentially modify the disease‐associated microbiome, suggesting that surface topography must be considered in the multi‐factorial etiology of peri‐implant diseases.