Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33667279›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A concerted probiotic activity to inhibit periodontitis-associated bacteria.

Paul Mathias Jansen, Mohamed M H Abdelbary, Georg Conrads

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. PostbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The Impact ofMicroorganisms · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. A Three-Month Probiotic (theDentistry journal · 2024
    Article
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

3 authors.

Paul Mathias JansenDivision of Oral Microbiology and Immunology, Department of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Mohamed M H AbdelbaryDivision of Oral Microbiology and Immunology, Department of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Georg ConradsDivision of Oral Microbiology and Immunology, Department of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2577-5294

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Periodontitis can result in tooth loss and the associated chronic inflammation can provoke several severe systemic health risks. Adjunctive to mechanical treatment of periodontitis and as alternatives to antibiotics, the use of probiotic bacteria was suggested. In this study, the inhibitory effect of the probiotic Streptococcus salivarius subsp. salivarius strains M18 and K12, Streptococcus oralis subsp. dentisani 7746, and Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC PTA 5289 on anaerobic periodontal bacteria and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans was tested. Rarely included in other studies, we also quantified the inverse effect of pathogens on probiotic growth. Probiotics and periodontal pathogens were co-incubated anaerobically in a mixture of autoclaved saliva and brain heart infusion broth. The resulting genome numbers of the pathogens and of the probiotics were measured by quantitative real-time PCR. Mixtures of the streptococcal probiotics were also used to determine their synergistic, additive, or antagonistic effects. The overall best inhibitor of the periodontal pathogens was L. reuteri ATCC PTA 5289, but the effect is coenzyme B12-, anaerobiosis-, as well as glycerol-dependent, and further modulated by L. reuteri strain DSM 17938. Notably, in absence of glycerol, the pathogen-inhibitory effect could even turn into a growth spurt. Among the streptococci tested, S. salivarius M18 had the most constant inhibitory potential against all pathogens, followed by K12 and S. dentisani 7746, with the latter still having significant inhibitory effects on P. intermedia and A. actinomycetemcomitans. Overall, mixtures of the streptococcal probiotics did inhibit the growth of the pathogens equally or-in the case of A. actinomycetemcomitans- better than the individual strains. P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum were best inhibited by pure cultures of S. salivarius K12 or S. salivarius M18, respectively. Testing inverse effects, the growth of S. salivarius M18 was enhanced when incubated with the periodontal pathogens minus/plus other probiotics. In contrast, S. oralis subsp. dentisani 7746 was not much influenced by the pathogens. Instead, it was significantly inhibited by the presence of other streptococcal probiotics. In conclusion, despite some natural limits such as persistence, the full potential for probiotic treatment is by far not utilized yet. Especially, further exploring concerted activity by combining synergistic strains, together with the application of oral prebiotics and essential supplements and conditions, is mandatory.

Indexed as

Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitansAnaerobiosisAntibiosisHumansLimosilactobacillus reuteriPeriodontitisPorphyromonas gingivalisProbioticsSalivaStreptococcusStreptococcus mutansStreptococcus salivarius

Identifiers

PMID33667279
PMCPMC7935250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.