Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26521147›Full record

ArticleJournal of endodontics2015

Microbiomes of Endodontic-Periodontal Lesions before and after Chemomechanical Preparation.

Brenda P F A Gomes, Vanessa B Berber, Alexis S Kokaras, Tsute Chen, Bruce J Paster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of endodontics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Brenda P F A GomesEndodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Microbiology, The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Electronic address: bpgomes@fop.unicamp.br.
Vanessa B BerberEndodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alexis S KokarasDepartment of Microbiology, The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Tsute ChenDepartment of Molecular Genetics, The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Bruce J PasterDepartment of Microbiology, The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Funding

A Foundation for the Oral Microbiome and MetagenomeU01DE016937 · NIDCR · ADA FORSYTH INSTITUTE, INC. · PI DEWHIRST, FLOYD E · 2006 to 2010
$3.5M
Oral Microbial Biomarkers in Periodontal Disease ProgressionR01DE021565 · NIDCR · ADA FORSYTH INSTITUTE, INC. · PI PASTER, BRUCE J · 2010 to 2013
$2.9M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE021565NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE016937
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study was conducted to evaluate the microbiomes of endodontic-periodontal lesions before and after chemomechanical preparation (CMP).

methodsClinical samples were taken from 15 root canals (RCs) with necrotic pulp tissues and from their associated periodontal pockets (PPs) (n = 15) of teeth with endodontic-periodontal lesions before and after CMP. The Human Oral Microbe Identification using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) protocol and viable culture were used to analyze samples from RCs and PPs. The Mann-Whitney U test and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections were performed to correlate the clinical and radiographic findings with microbial findings (P < .05).

resultsBacteria were detected in 100% of the samples in both sites (15/15) using NGS. Firmicutes was the most predominant phylum in both sites using both methods. The most frequently detected species in the RCs before and after CMP using NGS were Enterococcus faecalis, Parvimonas micra, Mogibacterium timidum, Filifactor alocis, and Fretibacterium fastidiosum. The species most frequently detected in the PPs before and after CMP using NGS were P. micra, E. faecalis, Streptococcus constellatus, Eubacterium brachy, Tannerella forsythia, and F. alocis. Associations were found between periapical lesions ≤ 2 mm and Desulfobulbus sp oral taxon 041 and with periodontal pockets ≥ 6 mm and Dialister invisius and Peptostreptococcus stomatis (all P < .05, found in the RCs before CMP).

conclusionsIt is concluded that the microbial community present in combined endodontic-periodontal lesions is complex and more diverse than previously reported. It is important to note that bacteria do survive in some root canals after CMP. Finally, the similarity between the microbiota of both sites, before and after CMP, suggests there may be a pathway of infection between the pulp and periodontium.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaRoot Canal PreparationAdultAgedBacteriaDental Pulp CavityDental Pulp NecrosisDNA, BacterialFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeriapical PeriodontitisPeriodontal PocketDNA, BacterialBacteriacultureendodontic-periodontal lesionsHuman Oral Microbe Identification using Next Generation Sequencingnext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID26521147
PMCPMC7061340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.