Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34412595›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2021

In vitro assessment of the effect of probiotic lactobacillus reuteri on peri-implantitis microflora.

Munaz Mulla, Mushir Mulla, Shashikanth Hegde, Ajit V Koshy

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. ESKAPEE Pathogen Biofilm Control on Surfaces with ProbioticAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  18. Growth Conditions InfluenceBiomedicines · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Munaz MullaDepartment of Periodontology, Yenepoya Dental College, University road, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka, 575018, India.
Mushir MullaDepartment of Oral and Dental Health, College of Applied Health Sciences in Arrass, Qassim University, Buraydah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Shashikanth HegdeDepartment of Periodontology, Yenepoya Dental College, University road, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka, 575018, India. yenperiophd@gmail.com.
Ajit V KoshyDepartment of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, M.A. Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProbiotics affect both the development and stability of microbiota by altering the colonization of pathogens and thus helps in stimulating the immune system of the individual. The aim of the present study is to assess the effect of probiotics on peri-implantitis microflora, by determining the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Lactobacillus reuteri, that can be effectively administered as an antimicrobial agent on specific peri-implantitis pathogens. Hence, this study will be helpful in finding the MIC of L. Reuteri that can be effectively administered as an antimicrobial agent on specific peri-implantitis pathogens.

methodsThis experimental research was conducted on patients visiting the periodontology department in M. A. Rangoonwala college of dental sciences and research centre. Sub-gingival plaque samples were collected from peri-implantitis patients to identify various peri-implantitis microorganisms. The identified microorganisms were compared to each other and Chi-Square test was used to calculate statistical significance. The isolated microorganisms were subjected to the effect of probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri in-vitro. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was assessed using serial dilution method.

resultsThe research results showed the presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, Streptococcus salivaris and Staphylococcus aureus in the subgingival samples from peri-implantitis patients. Statistically, significantly higher proportion of samples had Porphyromonas gingivalis. When subjected to the effect of L. reuteri, all the microorganisms were affected by L.reuteri except Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans.

conclusionThis study provides the various MIC value for each isolated pathogen against L.reuteri. The authors recommend to avoid using standard guidelines for probiotic dose in the treatment of peri-implant infections as the antimicrobial profile is different for each periodontal pathogen.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsLimosilactobacillus reuteriPeri-ImplantitisProbioticsAggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitansHumansPrevotella intermediaDental ImplantsLactobacillus reuteriMinimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)Peri-implantitisProbiotics

Identifiers

PMID34412595
PMCPMC8377827

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.