A meta-analysis of microbiota implicated in periimplantitis

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 대한구강생물학회
· 수록지 정보 : International Journal of Oral Biology / 48권 / 3호
· 저자명 : Han-gyoul Cho, Ran-Yi Jin, Seung-Ho Ohk

목차

Introduction
Materials and Methods
1. 연구 질문
2. 분석 대상 연구 선정 및 수집
3. 자료 분석 및 통계 처리
Results
1. 양적 합성(메타분석) 결과
2. 메타분석의 결과 종합
Discussion
Acknowlegements
Conflicts of Interest

영어초록

Peri-implantitis is a disease affecting the tissue surrounding dental implants, destroying both soft and hard tissues. A total of 2,015 studies were collected by searching items in the National Library of Medicine, including keywords, such as “peri-implantitis,” “microbiota,” and “microbiome.” Of them, 62 studies were screened and considered eligible for analysis. Only 16 studies qualified all criteria mentioned here: “Using PCR methods for microorganism detection,” “Suggesting quantified results,” “Stating obvious clinical diagnosis criteria (“Bleeding on probing,” “Probing pocket depth,” “Suppuration,” and “Radiographic bone loss”).” Only 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis because the others had special issues. Porphyromonas gingivalis , Tannerella forsythia , Treponema denticola , Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia , and Epstein-Barr virus were the microbiological subjects of analysis. The odds ratio (OR) between the healthy implants and peri-implantitis were calculated for each microorganism to compare two groups, and the forest plots were suggested as the visual materials. P. gingivalis (1.392 < OR < 2.841), T. forsythia (1.345 < OR < 3.221), T. denticola (2.180 < OR < 5.150), A. actinomycetemcomitans (1.975 < OR < 6.456), P. intermedia (1.245 < OR < 3.612), and Epstein-Barr virus (1.995 < OR < 9.383). The species showed that their 95% confidence interval of odds ratio was higher than 1, indicating that they were detected more frequently in periimplantitis than in healthy implants. Meanwhile, other species, such as Fusobacterium nucleatum and Staphylococcus aureus, were not included in the meta-analysis because the number of studies was insufficient.

참고자료

· 없음