Observational studyInternational endodontic journal2026
Association Between the Root Canal Microbiome and Apical Lesion Size: An Observational Shotgun Metagenomic Study.
Observational study in International endodontic journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe aim was to characterize the taxonomic and functional composition of the microbiome involved in primary endodontic infections and to evaluate their association with the periapical lesion size using shotgun metagenomic sequencing. METHODOLOGY: Samples from primary root canal infections diagnosed with apical periodontitis were analysed with shotgun sequencing. Samples were classified according to the lesion size as small (< 3 mm) or large (> 7 mm). The bacterial DNA copies in each group were quantified by qPCR. Taxonomic and functional annotations were made using Bracken/Kraken2 and HUMAnN3 software. Species richness, Shannon, Simpson and Pielou indices were used to measure alpha diversity. The similarity of the bacterial communities between study groups was evaluated by Principal Coordinate Analysis based on Bray-Curtis distances. The ALDEx2 package was used to infer the differences between species, and the edgeR package for KEGG pathways. For all statistical analyses, p < 0.05 was considered as significant.
resultsA total of 49 samples were analysed, 27 with small lesions and 22 with large lesions. Species richness and Shannon indices showed differences between both groups, whereas no differences were seen according to Simpson and Pielou indices. A different community composition (PERMANOVA, p = 0.0019) was observed between the two groups. Three species were significantly enriched in the large lesion samples, Filifactor alocis, Lachnospiraceae bacterium oral taxon 500 and Olsenella uli, while three others were enriched in small lesion samples, Acinetobacter baumannii, Acinetobacter pittii and Cutibacterium acnes. Functionally, benzoate, flavonoid and steroid degradation, the sphingolipid signalling pathway and proteasome function were enriched in samples with large lesions. Monoterpenoid biosynthesis, phospholipase D signalling, the sulphur relay system and staurosporine biosynthesis were enriched in small lesions.
conclusionsTeeth with large periapical lesions harbour greater bacterial loads and exhibit a more diverse microbial community than those with small lesions. Differences in species-level taxonomic composition were observed between both groups. Functionally, large lesions are enriched in pathways associated with immune evasion and pro-inflammatory activity, whereas small lesions are characterized by pathways related to apoptosis, metabolic adaptation and anti-inflammatory processes. These findings suggest that lesion severity is also shaped by the functional potential of the microbiome to modulate host inflammation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.