4.5 Reprint

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) and periodontal disease: pathogenic mechanisms (Reprinted from Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol 40, pg S170-S180, 2013)

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 84, 期 4, 页码 S170-S180

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2013.1340015

关键词

adverse pregnancy outcomes; experimental studies; in vitro studies; pathogenic mechanisms; periodontal disease

资金

  1. Colgate-Palmolive

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To evaluate the evidence on potential biological pathways underlying the possible association between periodontal disease (PD) and adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). Material & Methods: Human, experimental and in vitro studies were evaluated. Results: Periodontal pathogens/byproducts may reach the placenta and spread to the foetal circulation and amniotic fluid. Their presence in the foeto-placental compartment can stimulate a foetal immune/inflammatory response characterized by the production of IgM antibodies against the pathogens and the secretion of elevated levels of inflammatory mediators, which in turn may cause miscarriage or premature birth. Moreover, infection/inflammation may cause placental structural changes leading to pre-eclampsia and impaired nutrient transport causing low birthweight. Foetal exposure may also result in tissue damage, increasing the risk for perinatal mortality/morbidity. Finally, the elicited systemic inflammatory response may exacerbate local inflammatory responses at the foeto-placental unit and further increase the risk for APOs. Conclusions: Further investigation is still necessary to fully translate the findings of basic research into clinical studies and practice. Understanding the systemic virulence potential of the individual's oral microbiome and immune response may be a distinctly different issue from categorizing the nature of the challenge using clinical signs of PD. Therefore, a more personalized targeted therapy could be a more predictive answer to the current one-size-fits-all interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据