This review aimed to identify newly discovered bacteria from individuals with periodontal/peri-implant diseases and organize them into new clusters (GF-MoR complexes) to update Socransky’s complexes (1998). For methodological development, the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy was used for the focus question construction: “In patients with periodontal and/or peri-implant disease, what bacteria (microorganisms) were detected through laboratory assays?” The search strategy was applied to PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Embase. The search key terms, combined with Boolean markers, were (1) bacteria, (2) microbiome, (3) microorganisms, (4) biofilm, (5) niche, (6) native bacteria, (7) gingivitis), (8) periodontitis, (9) peri-implant mucositis, and (10) peri-implantitis. The search was restricted to the period 1998–2024 and the English language. The bacteria groups in the oral cavity obtained/found were retrieved and included in the GF-MoR complexes, which were based on the disease/condition, presenting six groups: (1) health, (2) gingivitis, (3) peri-implant mucositis, (4) periodontitis, (5) peri-implantitis, and (6) necrotizing and molar–incisor (M-O) pattern periodontitis. The percentual found per group refers to the number of times a specific bacterium was found to be associated with a particular disease. A total of 381 articles were found: 162 articles were eligible for full-text reading (k = 0.92). Of these articles, nine were excluded with justification, and 153 were included in this review (k = 0.98). Most of the studies reported results for the health condition, periodontitis, and peri-implantitis (3 out of 6 GF-MoR clusters), limiting the number of bacteria found in the other groups. Therefore, it became essential to understand that bacterial colonization is a dynamic process, and the bacteria present in one group could also be present in others, such as those observed with the bacteria found in all groups (Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannarela forsythia, Treponema denticola, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans) (GF-MoR’s red triangle). The second most observed bacteria were grouped in GF-MoR’s blue triangle: Porphyromonas spp., Prevotela spp., and Treponema spp., which were present in five of the six groups. The third most detected bacteria were clustered in the grey polygon (GF-MoR’s grey polygon): Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Eikenella corrodens. These three geometric shapes had the most relevant bacteria to periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Specifically, per group, GF-MoR’s health group had 58 species; GF-MoR’s gingivitis group presented 16 bacteria; GF-MoR’s peri-implant mucositis included 17 bacteria; GF-MoR’s periodontitis group had 101 different bacteria; GF-MoR’s peri-implantitis presented 61 bacteria; and the last group was a combination of necrotizing diseases and molar–incisor (M-I) pattern periodontitis, with seven bacteria. After observing the top seven bacteria of all groups, all of them were found to be gram-negative. Groups 4 and 5 (periodontitis and peri-implantitis) presented the same top seven bacteria. For the first time in the literature, GF-MoR’s complexes were presented, gathering bacteria data according to the condition found and including more bacteria than in Socransky’s complexes. Based on this understanding, this study could drive future research into treatment options for periodontal and peri-implant diseases, guiding future studies and collaborations to prevent and worsen systemic conditions. Moreover, it permits the debate about the evolution of bacterial clusters.

Objective: The aim of this review was to identify newly discovered bacteria from individuals with periodontal/peri-implant diseases and organize them in new clusters (GF-MoR complexes) to update Socransky’s complexes (1998). Methods: The focus question was developed based on the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy: “In patients with periodontal and/or peri-implant disease, what bacteria (microorganisms) were detected through laboratory assays?” The search strategy was applied to PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Embase. The search keyterms, combined with Boolean markers, were: (1) bacteria, (2) microbiome, (3) microorganisms, (4) biofilm, (5) niche, (6) native bacteria, (7) gingivitis), (8) periodontitis, (9) peri-implant mucositis, and (10) peri-implantitis. The search was restricted to 1998–2024 and English language. The bacteria groups in the oral cavity obtained/found were retrieved and were included in the GF-MoR complexes which were based on the disease/condition, presenting six groups: (1) Health, (2) Gingivitis, (3) Peri-implant mucositis, (4) Periodontitis, (5) Peri-implantitis, and (6) Necrotizing and Molar-Incisor (M-O) pattern Periodontitis. The percentual found per group refers to the number of times a specific bacterium was found associated with a particular disease. Results: A total of 381 articles were found; 162 articles were eligible for full-text reading (k=0.92); 9 articles were excluded with justification, and 153 were included in this review (k=0.98). Most of the studies reported results for Health condition, Periodontitis, and Peri-implantitis (3 out of 6 GF-MoR clusters), limiting the number of bacteria found in the other groups. Therefore, it is essential to understand that bacterial colonization is a dynamic process, and the bacteria present in one group can also be present in other one or others, such as observed with the bacteria found in all groups (Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannarela forsythia, Treponema denticola, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans) (GF-MoR’s red Triangle); the second most observed bacteria were grouped at GF-MoR’s blue Triangle: Porphyromonas spp., Prevotela spp., and Treponema spp., present in 5 of the six groups; and the third most detected bacteria were clustered in the grey Polygon (GF-MoR’s grey Polygon): Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Eikenella corrodens. These three geometric shapes had the most relevant bacteria for periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Specifically, per group, GF-MoR’s Health had 58 species; GF-MoR’s Gingivitis presented 16 bacteria; the GF-MoR’s Peri-implant mucositis included 17 bacteria; GF-MoR’s Periodontitis group had 101 different bacteria; GF-MoR’s Peri-implantitis presented 61 bacteria; and the last group was a combination of Necrotizing diseases and Molar-Incisor (M-I) pattern Periodontitis, with seven bacteria. Observing the top seven bacteria of all groups, all were gram-negative; Groups 4 and 5 (Periodontitis and Peri-implantitis) presented the same top seven bacteria. Conclusion: For the first time in the literature, GF-MoR’s complexes are presented, gathering the bacteria according to the condition found and including more bacteria than Socransky’s complexes. On this understanding, this study can drive future research into treatment options for periodontal and peri-implant diseases, guiding future studies and collaborating to prevent and worsen systemic conditions. Moreover, it permits the debate about the evolution of the bacterial clusters correlated to periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions.

The goal of this comprehensive review was to verify if the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) bacteria in patients with dyspepsia is higher in the oral cavity of periodontal or non-periodontal patients. The bibliographic search was conducted on scientific studies published in PubMed, Cochrane Library, SciELO, and BVS. The focus question was: “In patients with dyspepsia and periodontitis, is the prevalence of Hp bacteria in the oral cavity higher than in patients with only dyspepsia or without any disease?” The inclusion criteria were human studies in English, Portuguese, or Spanish languages, published between 2000 and 2022, that included patients over the age of 18 and aimed to evaluate the presence of Hp bacteria in the oral cavity and in the protective mucosal layer of the gastric lining of patients with the diseases (periodontitis and dyspepsia) or without disease; clinical trials, randomized controlled clinical trials, comparative studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies. The methodological quality evaluation of the included articles was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. The final scores could be of “Low” quality (at least two “no” [red] or ≥ five “unclear” found), “Moderate” quality (one “no” [red] was found or up to four “unclear” criteria were met), or “High” quality (all green [yes] or at maximum two “unclear”). Of 155 potentially eligible articles, 10 were included in this comprehensive review after the application of the eligibility criteria. The selected studies were scrutinized regarding the relationship between Hp colonization in the oral cavity and stomach, its impact on severity and complications of gastric infection, as well as the effect of the presence of oral and gastric Hp on dental and systemic parameters. Hp can colonize periodontal pockets regardless of its presence in the stomach. There was a higher prevalence of oral biofilm in dyspeptic patients with periodontal disease, and worse control of bleeding and low oral hygiene was observed in periodontal compared to non-periodontal patients. For que quality assessment, the scientific studies included presented low to moderate methodological quality. Conclusions: It is possible to conclude that Hp is a bacterium that can colonize dental plaque independently of the stomach and vice versa; however, when both diseases are found, its presence may be more significant. Supra and subgingival dental plaque may be a reservoir of Hp, suggesting that patients with gastric infections are more likely to have Hp in the oral cavity. The results must be carefully analyzed due to the limitations present in this review.