4.4 Article

Oral microflora in infants delivered vaginally and by caesarean section

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages 401-406

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01136.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Danish Dental Association
  2. Tandlaegernes Nye Landsforening
  3. Swedish Patent Revenue Research Fund for Preventive Odontology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Early in life, vaginally delivered infants exhibit a different composition of the gut flora compared with infants delivered by caesarean section (C-section); however, it is unclear whether this also applies to the oral cavity. Aim. To investigate and compare the oral microbial profile between infants delivered vaginally and by C-section. Design. This is a cross-sectional case-control study. Eighty-four infants delivered either vaginally (n = 42) or by C-section (n = 42) were randomly selected from the 2009 birth cohort at the County Hospital in Halmstad, Sweden. Medically compromised and premature children (<32 weeks) were excluded. The mean age was 8.25 months (range 6-10 months), and parents were asked to complete a questionnaire on socioeconomic factors, lifestyle, and hygiene habits. Saliva was collected and analysed using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. Results. A higher prevalence of salivary Streptococcus salivarius, Lactobacillus curvata, Lactobacillus salivarius, and Lactobacuillus casei was detected in infants delivered vaginally (P < 0.05). The caries-associated bacteria Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sobrinus were detected in 63% and 59% of all children, respectively. Conclusion. A significantly higher prevalence of certain strains of health-related streptococci and lactobacilli was found in vaginally delivered infants compared with infants delivered by C-section. The possible long-term effects on oral health need to be further investigated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available