Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa) is a low-abundance Gram-negative oral pathobiont that is highly associated with a silent but aggressive orphan disease that results in periodontitis and tooth loss in adolescents of African heritage. For the most part Aa conducts its business by utilizing strategies allowing it to conceal itself below the radar of the host mucosal immune defense system. A great deal of misinformation has been conveyed with respect to Aa biology in health and disease. The purpose of this review is to present misconceptions about Aa and the strategies that it uses to colonize, survive, and evade the host. In the process Aa manages to undermine host mucosal defenses and contribute to disease initiation. This review will present clinical observational, molecular, and interventional studies that illustrate genetic, phenotypic, and biogeographical tactics that have been recently clarified and demonstrate how Aa survives and suppresses host mucosal defenses to take part in disease pathogenesis. At one point in time Aa was considered to be the causative agent of Localized Aggressive Periodontitis. Currently, it is most accurate to look at Aa as a community activist and necessary partner of a pathogenic consortium that suppresses the initial host response so as to encourage overgrowth of its partners. The data for Aa's activist role stems from molecular genetic studies complemented by experimental animal investigations that demonstrate how Aa establishes a habitat (housing), nutritional sustenance in that habitat (food), and biogeographical mobilization and/or relocation from its initial habitat (transportation). In this manner Aa can transfer to a protected but vulnerable domain (pocket or sulcus) where its community activism is most useful. Aa's “strategy” includes obtaining housing, food, and transportation at no cost to its partners challenging the economic theory that “there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.” This “strategy” illustrates how co-evolution can promote Aa's survival, on one hand, and overgrowth of community members, on the other, which can result in local host dysbiosis and susceptibility to infection.

Objective: Since the initial description of aggressive periodontitis (AgP) in the early 1900s, classification of this disease has been in flux. The goal of this manuscript is to review the existing literature and to revisit definitions and diagnostic criteria for AgP.Study analysis: An extensive literature search was performed that included databases from PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science. Of 4930 articles reviewed, 4737 were eliminated. Criteria for elimination included; age > 30 years old, abstracts, review articles, absence of controls, fewer than; a) 200 subjects for genetic studies, and b) 20 subjects for other studies. Studies satisfying the entrance criteria were included in tables developed for AgP (localized and generalized), in areas related to epidemiology, microbial, host and genetic analyses. The highest rank was given to studies that were; a) case controlled or cohort, b) assessed at more than one time‐point, c) assessed for more than one factor (microbial or host), and at multiple sites.Results: Epidemiologic studies provided insight into ethnic and societal factors affecting AgP. DNA analysis of microbes showed some consistency but significant variability. Host factor analysis was less consistent. Many genetic studies were conducted but few had either sufficient power or looked at multiple genes in AgP.Conclusions: Conflicting data resulted for several reasons; 1) the classification was too broad, 2) the disease (AgP) was not studied from its inception, at differing time points (temporal), and at different locations (topographic). New technologic advances coupled with a more delimiting definition of disease will allow for genetic, host and microbial factor analyses in an unbiased manner. As such we predict that progress can be made in identifying a robust group of genetic, host, and microbial risk‐markers associated with periodontal disease that can improve diagnostic capability in disease associated with juveniles, adolescents, and post‐adolescent individuals.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is detectable in saliva from asymptomatic individuals, suggesting a potential benefit from the use of mouth rinses to suppress viral load and reduce virus spread. Published studies on the reduction of SARS-CoV-2-induced cytotoxic effects by mouth rinses do not exclude antiseptic mouth rinse-associated cytotoxicity. Here, we determined the effect of commercially available mouth rinses and antiseptic povidone-iodine on the infectivity of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 viruses and of pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 viruses. We first determined the effect of mouth rinses on cell viability to ensure that antiviral activity was not a consequence of mouth rinse-induced cytotoxicity. Colgate Peroxyl (hydrogen peroxide) exhibited the most cytotoxicity, followed by povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and Listerine (essential oils and alcohol). The potent antiviral activities of Colgate Peroxyl mouth rinse and povidone-iodine were the consequence of rinse-mediated cellular damage when the products were present during infection. The potency of CHG was greater when the product was not washed off after virus attachment, suggesting that the prolonged effect of mouth rinses on cells impacts the antiviral outcome. To minimalize mouth rinse-associated cytotoxicity, mouth rinse was largely removed from treated viruses by centrifugation prior to infection of cells. A 5% (v/v) dilution of Colgate Peroxyl or povidone-iodine completely blocked viral infectivity. A similar 5% (v/v) dilution of Listerine or CHG had a moderate suppressive effect on the virus, but a 50% (v/v) dilution of Listerine or CHG blocked viral infectivity completely. Mouth rinses inactivated the virus without prolonged incubation. The new infectivity assay, with limited impacts of mouth rinse-associated cytotoxicity, showed the differential effects of mouth rinses on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our results indicate that mouth rinses can significantly reduce virus infectivity, suggesting a potential benefit for reducing SARS-CoV-2 spread.

Improved diagnostics remains a fundamental goal of biomedical research. This study was designed to assess cytokine biomarkers that could predict bone loss (BL) in localized aggressive periodontitis. 2,058 adolescents were screened. Two groups of 50 periodontally healthy adolescents were enrolled in the longitudinal study. One group had Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), the putative pathogen, while the matched cohort did not. Cytokine levels were assessed in saliva and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). Participants were sampled, examined, and radiographed every 6 months for 2–3 years. Disease was defined as radiographic evidence of BL. Saliva and GCF was collected at each visit, frozen, and then tested retrospectively after detection of BL. Sixteen subjects with Aa developed BL. Saliva from Aa-positive and Aa-negative healthy subjects was compared to subjects who developed BL. GCF was collected from 16 subjects with BL and from another 38 subjects who remained healthy. GCF from BL sites in the 16 subjects was compared to healthy sites in these same subjects and to healthy sites in subjects who remained healthy. Results showed that cytokines in saliva associated with acute inflammation were elevated in subjects who developed BL (i.e., MIP-1α MIP-1β IL-α, IL-1β and IL-8; p<0.01). MIP-1α was elevated 13-fold, 6 months prior to BL. When MIP-1α levels were set at 40 pg/ml, 98% of healthy sites were below that level (Specificity); whereas, 93% of sites with BL were higher (Sensitivity), with comparable Predictive Values of 98%; p<0.0001; 95% C.I. = 42.5–52.7). MIP-1α consistently showed elevated levels as a biomarker for BL in both saliva and GCF, 6 months prior to BL. MIP-1α continues to demonstrate its strong candidacy as a diagnostic biomarker for both subject and site vulnerability to BL.