You and I know that the white sticky stuff that accumulates
on teeth during the day and overnight is made
up of millions of bacteria, but since patients don’t see
the bugs (unless you have a microscope in your office)
they don’t get excited about it. They think it might
just be some leftover donut. No one likes the taste or
smell of morning mouth, so strongly flavored
mouthrinses and toothpastes are popularly used to
cover up the nasty taste – neither actually removes
the source of the nastiness. If your patients really
knew what lived in that white sticky stuff, they just
might be more compliant with your admonitions
to remove it daily. In 1676, Antonie Philips van
Leeuwenhoek, “the Father of Microbiology,” was curious
enough about the white sticky stuff on his teeth that he
scraped some off to examine under his primitive microscope.
He observed “animalculi” living in a microbial
community on his teeth and understood the impact
these bacteria would have on the body, without
really understanding the chronic inflammation
of periodontal disease.
Since then, researchers have
revealed the sophistication
of oral bacterial communities, how they protect themselves while triggering
infection, the complexity of the body’s immune response and
most recently, ways to stimulate the resolution of inflammation
and return the tissues to homeostasis.
Plaque
The term plaque was first used by Dr. G.V. Black 100 years
ago to describe accretions on tooth surfaces. His work with
plaque focused on dental decay and ways to repair the loss of
tooth structure. In 1943, Dr. Charles C. Bass, dean of the
School of Medicine at Tulane University, published the first of
many papers and research reports demonstrating the value of
brushing and flossing to prevent periodontal disease. Loosing all
your teeth as you aged was common in his day. Having lost a
tooth or two to periodontal disease, Dr. Bass examined them
under the microscope to learn why they were lost and find a way
to save the rest. From his work came the “Bass” toothbrushing
technique and unwaxed “Right Kind” dental floss. Brushing and
flossing remain the primary means of removing the plaque, but
still patients don’t grasp the idea that this white sticky stuff,
sometimes dyed red with disclosing solution, is actually a microcosm
of millions of bacteria.
In 1965, the experimental gingivitis studies published by Dr.
Harold Löe demonstrated that allowing plaque to accumulate in
a healthy mouth produced gingivitis. Reinstating oral hygiene
measures reversed the gingivitis within seven days. These
early plaque studies showed a sequential development
of marginal plaque beginning with Gram-positive
coccoid bacteria and moving to a more
complex, Gram-negative, anaerobic mixture
of bacteria. As Dr. Niklaus
Lang stated in a
July 2009,
Journal of Clinical Periodontology article: “These and other studies
came to be the ultimate documentation that bacterial plaque
was something very different from food debris, something much
more colorful than Material Alba, and much more interesting
than just ‘Schmutz.’”
Biofilm
Adding the work of engineers to the study of bacterial
plaque took it to another level – that of biofilm. While periodontists
were focused on identifying bacterial species in dead plaque
under the microscope, engineers lead by of Dr. J. William
Costerton at the Center for Biofilm Engineering at Montana
State University, were more interested in how the bacteria lived
and worked together. Did they have single family dwellings or
high-rise condos? Did they have highways and bridges to expedite
travel? How did they bring nutrition in and get rid of waste
materials? Did bacteria communicate by electrical, chemical or
mechanical means? Engineers and microbiologists answered
these questions using laser confocal microscopy and producing
digital imagery to evaluate living plaque colonies in a fluid environment.
Their work has provided information about a very
complex, living bacterial community with inherent resistance to
antibiotic and antimicrobial agents. Thus, we have a transition
from Dr. G.V. Black’s term, plaque, to Dr. Costerton’s term,
biofilm, and with it brings a greater understanding of the complex
ecosystem in which the bacteria live and multiply.
Communication is a vital part of biofilm formation. Single,
planktonic cells use both chemicals and energy to communicate.
Through signaling molecules, the planktonic cells measure the
number of other bacteria in the area. When they have the right
number of cells to form a biofilm – a quorum – the bacteria
communicate with each other and at the appointed moment,
they all produce a polysaccharide slime that will form the matrix
of the biofilm and hold them together as they grow into a tower
or mushroom shape. This cell-to-cell communication allows
bacteria to adapt to their complex and ever changing environment.
Biofilms provide a protected mode of growth that allows
bacteria to survive and multiply, even in a hostile environment.
Channels within the biofilm carry nutrients in and toxic waste
out of the organized community. Bacteria make up approximately
one-third of the biofilm with the other two-thirds being
slime and water. Gene expression by bacteria in one section of
the biofilm is often different from bacteria in other sections. The
structural complexity of biofilm and the communication among
bacteria give the appearance of a single entity rather than millions
of individual bacteria. It’s not surprising that many chronic
infections are caused by bacterial biofilms.
Infection
The infection is created when toxic waste products from the
bacteria in a biofilm pass through the epithelial attachment and
the non-keratinized sulcular tissue, triggering a response from the host. The first line of defense is the white blood cells, the
neutrophils. Antigen release by the bacteria triggers the response
of antibodies. Phagocytic cells arrive to attack and devour the
invading bacteria, however, the protection of the biofilm prevents
the immune response from taking out the bacteria.
Instead, the release of enzymes intended to destroy the bacteria
actually destroys healthy connective tissue.
Researchers have discussed several possible theories to
explain how bacterial biofilm actually causes periodontal disease.
The “specific plaque hypothesis” suggested just one bacteria was
responsible, however periodontists have identified six to eight
potential pathogens among 700 identified species in oral
biofilm, and research hasn’t confirmed one specific bug responsible
for gingivitis or for converting gingivitis to periodontitis.
In medicine, an acute infection is generally caused by a single
species of bacteria and as such is susceptible to antibiotic therapy.
Chronic infections are generally mixed bacterial biofilms
and not easily eradicated by conventional antibiotic therapy.
Next came the “non-specific plaque hypothesis” suggesting
that all plaque was bad plaque and it was the amount of plaque
that caused disease. Again, no research to prove this and you’ve
probably seen patients with so much plaque they deserve disease,
but don’t have any attachment loss. Then there are the others
who have very little plaque on their teeth, but the connective
tissue and bone seem to be melting away.
It’s not just about the bacteria anymore, as smoking and diabetes
were the first recognized risk factors that interfere with periodontal
healing. The impact of genetics became clear with studies
done on twins. Today, epigenetic differences, changes in gene
expression can be influenced by environmental factors, stress, diet
and bacterial accumulation. Although our original DNA doesn’t
change, the way the genes are expressed does, which impacts periodontitis
as well as cancer and other inflammatory diseases.
Alterations in gene expression can be reversed by eliminating the
stressor, nutritional deficiency, bacteria or they can remain and be
passed on to future generations with potential detrimental effects.
Variations between patients was acknowledged by Dr. Roy
Page and his colleagues in 1997 when genetic, environmental
and acquired risk factors were added to the description of pathogenesis.
These findings led researchers to focus on the individual
and the complexities of the immune response rather than the
bacteria. Diet, genetic variations and immune response are now
considered important aspects of the pathogenesis of periodontal
disease and the focus of current research.
Inflammation
The study of inflammation began in ancient times as documented
by Celsus with the four cardinal signs of inflammation:
rubor (redness), calor (heat), tumor (swelling), and dolor (pain).
The body’s first response to irritation, injury or infection is via
the blood vessels in the area, causing redness, heat and swelling.
Pain results from the release of chemicals stimulating nerve endings.
The arrival of defensive white blood cells to the area triggers
a cascade of immune reactions.
Both innate and adaptive immune responses occur. The
innate response will recruit immune cells to the area.
Polymorphonuclear neutrophils, monocytes and macrophages
are all phagocytic cells that release cytokines, triggering the complement
system and acute phase response. These systems will
assist in the targeting and removal of pathogens.
The adaptive immune response can distinguish cells of the body
from the invading pathogens. These cells recognize antigens and
organize a response to eliminate specific pathogens. Attempts to
control the immune inflammatory response have used nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs to block the signs of inflammation.
An exciting new direction in the research shows that the
resolution of inflammation is an active process that can be modified
and pushed, with newly derived substances, to return the tissue to
homeostasis, without the side effects of anti-inflammatory drugs.
Resolution of Inflammation
Traditionally, it was thought that simply eliminating the
pro-inflammatory mediators would be enough to turn off
inflammation and allow the tissues to return to health. Evidence
now confirms that resolution of inflammation is not a passive
process, but an actively regulated process. The research team at
Boston University led by Dr. Thomas Van Dyke, in collaboration
with others, has identified proresolving lipid mediators that
contribute to restoring the periodontal tissues to health. The
body produces lipoxins from the metabolism of arachidonic acid
and Dr. Van Dyke’s team has derived a number of similar molecules
from omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Resolvins and
protectins are similar to lipoxins, acting to trigger the termination
and resolution of inflammation and returning the tissue to
homeostasis. Animal research with topical applications of
omega-3 derivatives around periodontally involved teeth
restored the connective tissues to health and prevented bone
loss. Human studies are now underway to determine clinical
effectiveness of activating the resolution of inflammation and
repair of the tissues with omega 3 fatty acid derivatives.
The common denominator between periodontal disease and
other systemic diseases and conditions is chronic inflammation.
Diabetes, arthritis, cardiovascular disease, obesity and aging all
share components of chronic inflammation. Identifying and targeting
the mechanisms of infection, inflammation and resolution
of inflammation are the challenges researchers now face.
This research is multidisciplinary with periodontists, physicians,
microbiologists and geneticists working together to understand
chronic inflammation and how it impacts the body in so many
ways. What started with a look at the white sticky stuff on our
teeth, has led to a wealth of information and research about the
complex immune response of individuals and the genetic influences
responsible for the wide variation in responses, not just to
periodontal disease, but many other diseases and conditions |