Next Article in Journal
Exploring Progesterone Deficiency in First-Trimester Miscarriage and the Impact of Hormone Therapy on Foetal Development: A Scoping Review
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Diagnostic Spectrum of Children with Raised Faecal Calprotectin Levels
Previous Article in Special Issue
Non-Cariogenic Effect of Milk and Dairy Products on Oral Health in Children and Adolescents: A Scoping Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/children11040421
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Oral Microbiota of Infants in Maternal Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review

by
Nicole Camoni
1,2,
Giulio Conti
3,
Alessandra Majorana
4,
Elena Bardellini
4,
Claudia Salerno
5,6,
Thomas Gerard Wolf
5,7,
Guglielmo Campus
5 and
Maria Grazia Cagetti
2,*
1
ASST Valle Olona, Dental Unit, 21052 Gallarate, Italy
2
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20112 Milano, Italy
3
Department of Medicine and Surgery, School of Dentistry, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy
4
Department of Oral Medicine and Paediatric Dentistry, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy
5
Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
6
Graduate School for Health Sciences, University of Bern, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
7
Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University Medical Center of the Jhoannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55116 Mainz, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2024, 11(4), 421; https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040421
Submission received: 4 March 2024 / Revised: 20 March 2024 / Accepted: 26 March 2024 / Published: 2 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advance Research in Pediatric Dental Disease: 2nd Edition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects approximately 5–20% of pregnant women and is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. This review aimed to assess whether the oral microbiota of infants and their mothers with GDM had a different composition from that found in unaffected women and offspring. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched in December 2023 after protocol registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023406505). Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. Overall, 1113 articles were identified; after evaluating the full texts, 12 papers were included in the qualitative analysis. In six studies of the eight included, significant differences in microbiota between M-GDM and M-nGDM were found. In four studies, a depletion of Firmicutes and an enrichment of Proteobacteria was found in the microbiota of infants. Since all included studies were judged to have high risk of bias, a quantitative synthesis of the results was not carried out. In conclusion, although the oral microbiota of infants from mothers with GDM could be different from that of infants from mothers without GDM, there is insufficient evidence to clarify this aspect so far.

1. Introduction

Human bodies developed eubiotic relationships with microorganisms harbored in various niches over time, reflecting evolutionary selection pressures [1,2]. When the balance between host and bacteria is present, the individual is generally healthy, while microbial imbalance favors the development of diseases [1,3]. Human bacteria not only interact with host by producing enzymes and protecting against external pathogens, but they also interact through their genome and coding activity. Although the terms microbiota and microbiome are used interchangeably, when referring to a microbial community, it is important to recognize the differences. The microbiome refers to the collective genomes of microorganisms, while the microbiota is the range of microorganisms present in the community [2,4]. It is generally recognized that the establishment of the microbiota in infants begins at the time of birth (postnatal colonization); this means that the initiation of microbiota colonization in infants is a dynamic process that starts during delivery and continues after birth [5,6]. The importance of the oral microbiota of infants has recently been emphasized. During the early stages of infant development, it is becoming crucial to recognize the interactions and adaptations of microbial communities to changing conditions that could result in alterations of the host environment and, consequently, play a role in the initiation and/or progression of diseases [7].
Pregnancy also seems to be a special time in women’s lives from a microbiological point of view, as hormonal changes play a role in modifying the microbiota [8]. If a disease occurs during gestation, the dysbiosis may be even more evident, as in the case of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) [9,10]. GDM is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy [11].
GDM is currently one of the most common complications of pregnancy, occurring in about 5–20% of women, and its prevalence is rising [12]. It is related with overweight and obesity, later age, a family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and ethnicity [13,14]. Diagnosis is normally achieved using the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), routinely performed during pregnancy [13]. The condition of prediabetes is also frequent and could be an adjunctive target of evaluation, even if there is still paucity of data [15,16]. Women positive for GDM are asked for dietary modification and increased physical activity, but insulin is used when glycemic control is not achieved [13]. The complications related with the infants of GDM mothers are stillbirth, congenital malformations, being large for gestational age, pre-term birth, birth trauma, hypoglycemia, hyper biliuria, and respiratory distress syndrome [17].
GDM affects the oral health of future mothers, especially when gingivitis or pre-conception periodontal disease is present [18]. These two diseases have a wide prevalence varying from 44.7 to 65.6% and from 17.93 to 35.20%, respectively [19]. The etiology of GDM was linked to oral inflammation due to higher levels of tumor necrosis factor, interleukin 6, and C-reactive protein [18,19]. Moreover, like GDM, periodontal disease is linked to miscarriages and pre-term delivery [20,21]. Women with GDM appear to be 6.43 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than non-GDM subjects [22]. Infants of mothers with GDM also appear to be at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes in adulthood; the cumulative risk of being diagnosed with diabetes by age 20 is 15% and the prevalence of diabetes is 21% at age 22 [23,24]. Additionally, the inflammatory state due to GDM seems to influence the oral microbiota of mothers, in which dysbiosis appears to be present, as well as the oral microbiota of their infants, which seems to be different from that of children born to unaffected mothers [25]. The temporal variation in the composition and diversity of the microbiota and its association with different medical conditions, such as the peculiar characteristics of the oral microbiota of infants and mothers with GDM and what they share with periodontal patients, are still unclear; indeed, the long-term effects of crosstalk of the mother–infant microbiota need to be clarified [26].
Microbiota diversity can be assessed through indices that condense ecological data into a single value that takes into account both species richness (number of different species in a community) and uniformity (relative abundance of species) [27]. While an increase in the number of species or a more even distribution of their abundances results in a higher diversity score, indices differ in their sensitivity to these two components of richness and evenness. The discrepancies between common indices of community diversity, e.g., Shannon’s or Simpson’s index, have long been recognized in the field of ecology [28]. Given this premise, this systematic review was designed and conducted to gather scientific evidence on the diversity of the oral microbiota in infants and mothers with GDM compared to unaffected infants and mothers, considering microbiological data from culture, PCR, or sequencing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

The review protocol was registered in the International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in March 2023 (CRD42023406505). The writing of this systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Supplementary Materials File S1, PRISMA checklist).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

A question was formulated according to PECO as follows: Do infants born to mothers with gestational diabetes as well as the mothers themselves have a different oral microbiota from that found in infants of unaffected mothers?
  • P: infants born from mothers with GDM and women without GDM;
  • E: oral microbiota analysis in saliva or mucosal or plaque samples;
  • C: infants and pregnant women without any type of diabetic condition;
  • O: oral microbiota dysbiosis/modification of composition, considering results from oral swabs and saliva/plaque samples detected by culturing, PCR, or DNA/RNA sequencing.
Clinical trials and interventional and observational studies were considered from January 2013 to December 2023. The exclusion criteria were studies including participants without any oral microbiota analysis for both infants and mothers. Furthermore, studies with infant samples older than 2 years and studies on women with serious health conditions other than diabetes, which could have altered the results, were excluded.

2.3. Search Strategy

A search was conducted using four databases: PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), and Google Scholar. The search was performed in March 2023 and updated in December 2023. The search strategy carried out for each database is displayed in the supplementary file (Supplementary Materials File S2, Electronic search). All references were uploaded to the Endnote 20® software for duplicate management and study selection. Finally, the reference lists of the studies included were hand-searched to identify additional records.

2.4. Study Selection and Data Extraction

After duplicate exclusion, two independent authors (NC and GCo) screened the records by title and abstract; when in doubt, the opinion of a third author was requested (GCa). The selected papers were then screened in the full-text format by the same two authors. When a consensus was reached, the main characteristics of full texts were extracted and reported in a Microsoft Office Excel 2019® spreadsheet. Data extraction was performed in duplicate by two authors (NC and MGC), including a description of the study design, outcome, variables evaluated, and results. Every effort was made to obtain original data from authors when needed; they were contacted via e-mail and/or ResearchGate®. Cohen’s kappa value for inter-reviewer agreement for both title/abstract and full text evaluation was performed.

2.5. Risk of Bias

The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for cohort studies and cross-sectional studies [29]. The risk was considered low when all criteria were met or no more than 1 criterion was judged unclear; medium if 2 criteria were judged unclear and the others were met, or 1 criterion was not met and the others were met; or high if 3 or more criteria were judged unclear and the others were met, or 2 criteria were not met, and the others were met. Two reviewers (AM and EB) carried out the assessments and divergences were resolved with discussion.

2.6. Outcome Measures

The primary outcome for this review was the diversity in the composition of the oral microbiota of infants and pregnant women with GDM/prediabetes compared to that found in unaffected women and their offspring. The secondary outcome was the assessment of oral microbiota composition in relation to the type of delivery.

2.7. Synthesis of the Results and Metanalysis

The Stata 18® package was employed for the analysis. A meta-analysis was considered appropriate in the presence of studies with comparable data, i.e., reporting the same outcome and interventions, but it was not considered appropriate if the studies were jugged to be at high risk of bias as the result could be seriously misleading. In this condition, only a qualitative description of the results was possible. A p-value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant for all analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A total of 1112 records were retrieved. After removing duplicates (n = 214), 899 papers were screened by title and abstract and 19 were selected. After full-text evaluation, 11 studies were selected and one additional article was found by searching in the studies’ reference lists, so 12 papers were included in this systematic review. The results of the search are displayed in the PRISMA flow-chart (Figure 1). The excluded studies after the full text evaluation are reported in the Supplementary File (Supplementary Materials File S3, Papers excluded after full-text evaluation). Cohen’s kappa value for inter-reviewer agreement was 0.57 at title and abstract screening (95.5% agreement) and 0.83 at full-text evaluation (96.1% agreement).

3.2. Study Characteristics

All included studies were observational and published between 2008 and 2022. Regarding the samples, the number of infants considered varied from 20 to 155 [30,31], while for pregnant women, this number varied from 20 to 262 [31,32]. The maternal age ranged from 18 to 45 years [33,34]. All studies considered women without other clinical conditions than GDM. The type of delivery was declared in only six studies [30,31,32,35,36,37].
Regarding data on newborns (Table 1), the four studies that analyzed their microbiota found a depletion in Firmicutes and an enrichment in Proteobacteria [30,31,35,36]. All used oral swabs for microbiological analysis and considered data on birth weight and type of delivery. With regard to the data of women with/without GDM (Table 1 and Table 2), the dental evaluation of mothers was conducted in five studies [32,33,34,38,39], with only Yao et al. providing a comprehensive periodontal evaluation [34]. Oral microbiota detection was performed using oral swabs [30,31,35,36,40], in saliva [33,37,38], in plaque [32,33,34,38,39], and, in one study, both in plaque and saliva [33]. The microbial detection methods were sequencing [31,33,35,36,37,38,40,41], culturing [30,34], and PCR [32,39]. The results of the microbiological analysis showed that two studies did not find any statically significant difference in the oral microbiota of mothers with or without GDM [32,40], while an enrichment in anaerobic species was found in all the other studies [30,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,41], with a lower alpha diversity in mothers with GDM. A summary of the characteristics and results of the included studies is given in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

3.3. Reporting Biases

Table 4a,b present the findings of the risk of bias assessment in the included studies. All the studies showed an overall high risk of bias [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].

3.4. Meta-Analysis

No quantitative synthesis was performed due to the high risk of bias found in the included studies.

3.5. Certainty of Evidence

The currently available literature does not provide evidence of an association between specific bacterial phyla or genera in the oral microbiota of infants and mothers and gestational diabetes. The high risk of bias could not allow for a quantitative analysis. Furthermore, the majority of research has not distinctly examined the microbial communities in individuals with periodontitis versus those with a healthy periodontium and its effect on infants. This is necessary to determine the specific differences attributed to infants’ oral microbiota in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) or periodontal conditions.

4. Discussion

Studies in the literature seem to indicate that the oral microbiota of infants of mothers with GDM varies from that of infants of mothers without GDM [30,31,35,36,40,42,43]; however, the present review does not confirm this hypothesis.
Dysbiosis, as an imbalance in the microbial community, cannot be transmitted directly from mother to offspring, but pathogens present in the imbalanced microbiota can be transmitted, adversely affecting the health of infants [6]. Hormonal changes during pregnancy lead to microbiota modifications and an increase in Gram-negative species; dysbiosis increases inflammation, which is enhanced by higher glucose levels [32]. When GDM occurs, anaerobic bacteria benefit from the higher glycemic values [20]. In addition, reactive oxygen and glycation species, inflammatory cytokines typical of GDM subjects, could negatively affect oral and systemic health [40].
The present review could not find evidence of a specific microbiological profile for the oral microbiota of infants and mothers with GDM, although an abundance of pathogenic species in infants and their mothers with GDM was reported [30,31,35,36,44]. Understanding how oral niches are colonized in the early period of life seems crucial for the early detection of microbiological conditions that may facilitate disease development. However, it should be emphasized that until the infant is edentulous, periodontal pathogens are transient in the oral cavity and the only possible colonization niche is the dorsum of the tongue [26]. As consequence, the need for well-conducted clinical trials in this field is high. However, to date, the lack of standardized methods for studying the oral microbiota has not given strength to the overall results of the studies. This led to the identification of bias in the measurement of outcomes and the reporting of results in almost all included articles. According to Nardi et al. [43], who analyzed many aspects of neonatal-maternal correlations of the oral microbiota, a possible alteration of the early oral microbiota of infants has been hypothesized not only if the child is born to a mother with GDM, but also in the case of maternal overweight, exposure to antibiotics during gestation, and in relation to the type of delivery and feeding. However, experimental protocols on maternal health and the oral microbiota of mothers and infants are needed to investigate this in depth and develop preventive strategies that can ensure a eubiotic oral microbiota in newborns. Most of the actual knowledge on neonatal microbiota from GDM mothers is about gut niches [45,46]. Modulation of neonatal gut microbiota is already a clinical practice in which the use of probiotics is a major determinant in the trajectory of its assembly [47,48,49]. For these reasons, as the oral cavity is the first part of the gastro-enteric tract, and, moreover, is the preferred route of administration of probiotics, its microbiota should be taken in great consideration when carrying out treatments on the gut microbiota.
Regarding the microbial profile of pregnant women, GDM led to an increase in anaerobic bacteria that are often associated with periodontal disease. However, the magnitude of how pre-pregnancy oral conditions could influence the outcomes is still unclear, as the studies did not check the subjects in a wide time range before and after pregnancy. This review showed an increase in Gram-negative and periodontal pathogens, although two studies could not find any difference. Previous research on women with GDM and periodontitis stage II, that focused specifically on F. nucleatum and Capnocytophafaga species, underlined that in cases of adverse pregnancy outcomes, these bacteria were found not only in dental plaque but also in cord blood and the peri-cervical vagina, to signify a possible blood transmission of these species [19]. Therefore, as many women with GDM develop type II diabetes, both women with prediabetic profiles and those with GDM should receive comprehensive health counselling, including weight management, healthy lifestyle behaviors (such as diet and physical activity), and dental counselling [50].
The composition of the newborn microbiota and species abundance are influenced by variables that may directly or indirectly perturb the microbial community during growth periods, but still, more evidence is needed to clear the modulation of oral microbiota when GDM occurs [51].
The limitations of this review are imputable to the reduced number of studies available, the high risk of bias detected, the low number of infants included in each sample, the different detection methods of the oral microbiota used, the different timing of sample collection, the lack of standardized dental evaluation for the mothers, and the different and sometimes contradictory results. Another significant limitation is that in only one study, women with cesarean deliveries were included to avoid microbial contamination from the vaginal tract [37]. Furthermore, it was impossible to gather data on prediabetic pregnant women and relative offspring in this review. Furthermore, it would be necessary to include data on subjects from different geographic areas to assess whether GDM and oral dysbiosis of the newborn vary according to other characteristics, such as maternal diet and different lifestyles [10,52].
Studying the origin and characteristics of newborn and maternal microbiota is essential for future tailored preventive/therapeutic actions; oral microbiota might be an optimal source of information due to the simplicity of sample collection. Thus, some authors suggest that oral swabs for pregnant women could be a more feasible detection method for GDM, as it does not imply blood collection nor the consumption of glucoside solutions [30,35].
Oral health is often underestimated by both clinicians and patients, even though periodontitis is one of the most common non-communicable diseases; indeed, in women with GDM, dental monitoring and, if necessary, related diagnostic and therapeutic procedures are required [53]. From the dental point of view, new research should evaluate the periodontal profile and analyze the inflammatory components that could result from the hyperglycemic condition and periodontal disease. It would be mandatory to investigate whether simple actions, such as regular professional oral hygiene in mothers with GDM, can improve the oral profile of infants in the short and long term.

5. Conclusions

Due to the important limitations of the included studies, there is no evidence that infants and their mothers with GDM have a distinctive oral microbiota. Furthermore, the effects of microbiological diversity found in some studies in children from mothers with GDM on general and oral health are not yet known. As the oral microbiota undergoes many changes, especially in the first two years of life, studies should monitor children for a long period to assess the role played by maternal GDM in the maturation of the ecological environment of the oral cavity of the child. Infants and their mothers with GDM should be regularly monitored by a multidisciplinary team, starting with the mother during pregnancy and continuing with mother and child in the first years of life. Regular check-ups are the best way to limit or manage periodontal disease in mothers and to motivate them to give the appropriate dental care to their infants, which may offset the possible transmission of potentially pathogenic bacteria due to GDM.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/children11040421/s1: File S1: Search strategies; File S2: Papers excluded after full-text evalution; File S3: Prisma checklist

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.C. and G.C. (Giulio Conti); methodology, G.C. (Guglielmo Campus); software, A.M.; validation, E.B., G.C. (Guglielmo Campus) and C.S.; formal analysis, G.C. (Giulio Conti); investigation, M.G.C.; resources, G.C. (Guglielmo Campus); data curation, N.C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.B.; writing—review and editing, G.C. (Giulio Conti); visualization, M.G.C.; supervision, A.M. and T.G.W.; project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Iebba, V.; Totino, V.; Gagliardi, A.; Santangelo, F.; Cacciotti, F.; Trancassini, M.; Mancini, C.; Cicerone, C.; Corazziari, E.; Pantanella, F.; et al. Eubiosis and Dysbiosis: The Two Sides of the Microbiota. New Microbiol. 2016, 39, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Ley, R.E.; Peterson, D.A.; Gordon, J.I. Ecological and Evolutionary Forces Shaping Microbial Diversity in the Human Intestine. Cell 2006, 124, 837–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Arora, A.; Behl, T.; Sehgal, A.; Singh, S.; Sharma, N.; Bhatia, S.; Sobarzo-Sanchez, E.; Bungau, S. Unravelling the Involvement of Gut Microbiota in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Life Sci. 2021, 273, 119311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sekirov, I.; Russell, S.L.; Antunes, L.C.; Finlay, B.B. Gut Microbiota in Health and Disease. Physiol. Rev. 2010, 90, 859–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tochitani, S. Vertical Transmission of Gut Microbiota: Points of Action of Environmental Factors Influencing Brain Development. Neurosci. Res. 2021, 168, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tanoey, J.; Gulati, A.; Patterson, C.; Becher, H. Risk of Type 1 Diabetes in the Offspring Born through Elective or Non-Elective Caesarean Section in Comparison to Vaginal Delivery: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Curr. Diab. Rep. 2019, 19, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. D’Agostino, S.; Ferrara, E.; Valentini, G.; Stoica, S.A.; Dolci, M. Exploring Oral Microbiome in Healthy Infants and Children: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Fuhler, G.M. The Immune System and Microbiome in Pregnancy. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2020, 44, 101671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Medici Dualib, P.; Ogassavara, J.; Mattar, R.; Mariko Koga da Silva, E.; Atala Dib, S.; de Almeida Pititto, B. Gut Microbiota and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2021, 180, 109078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ponzo, V.; Fedele, D.; Goitre, I.; Leone, F.; Lezo, A.; Monzeglio, C.; Finocchiaro, C.; Ghigo, E.; Bo, S. Diet-Gut Microbiota Interactions and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM). Nutrients 2019, 11, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Quintanilla Rodriguez, B.S.; Mahdy, H. Gestational Diabetes; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  12. Neri, C.; Serafino, E.; Morlando, M.; Familiari, A. Microbiome and Gestational Diabetes: Interactions with Pregnancy Outcome and Long-Term Infant Health. J. Diabetes Res. 2021, 2021, 9994734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. McIntyre, H.D.; Catalano, P.; Zhang, C.; Desoye, G.; Mathiesen, E.R.; Damm, P. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2019, 5, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chu, A.H.Y.; Godfrey, K.M. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Developmental Programming. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2020, 76 (Suppl. S3), 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Swaleh, R.; Zeng, L.; Mbuagbaw, L.; Morrison, K.M. Outcomes in the Offspring of Mothers with Pre-Diabetes during Pregnancy: A Protocol for a Systematic Review. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Al-Rifai, R.H.; Aziz, F. Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes, Prediabetes, and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Women of Childbearing Age in Middle East and North Africa, 2000–2017: Protocol for Two Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Syst. Rev. 2018, 7, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sweeting, A.; Wong, J.; Murphy, H.R.; Ross, G.P. A Clinical Update on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Endocr. Rev. 2022, 43, 763–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jiang, H.; Su, Y.; Xiong, X.; Harville, E.; Wu, H.; Jiang, Z.; Qian, X. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Periodontal Disease among Pre-Conception Chinese Women. Reprod. Health 2016, 13, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Choudhury, P.; Rao, R.; Prabhu, S.; Srirangarajan, S.; Rudresh, V. Microorganisms of Maternal Periodontitis Cause Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Gestational Diabetic Individuals: A Preliminary Observational Report. Quintessence Int. 2022, 53, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Figuero, E.; Han, Y.W.; Furuichi, Y. Periodontal Diseases and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: Mechanisms. Periodontology 2000 2020, 83, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Malaza, N.; Masete, M.; Adam, S.; Dias, S.; Nyawo, T.; Pheiffer, C. A Systematic Review to Compare Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Pregestational Diabetes and Gestational Diabetes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Juan, J.; Sun, Y.; Wei, Y.; Wang, S.; Song, G.; Yan, J.; Zhou, P.; Yang, H. Progression to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus after Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosed by Iadpsg Criteria: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Endocrinol. 2022, 13, 1012244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Clausen, T.D.; Mathiesen, E.R.; Hansen, T.; Pedersen, O.; Jensen, D.M.; Lauenborg, J.; Damm, P. High Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes in Adult Offspring of Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus or Type 1 Diabetes: The Role of Intrauterine Hyperglycemia. Diabetes Care 2008, 31, 340–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Franks, P.W.; Looker, H.C.; Kobes, S.; Touger, L.; Tataranni, P.A.; Hanson, R.L.; Knowler, W.C. Gestational Glucose Tolerance and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Young Pima Indian Offspring. Diabetes 2006, 55, 460–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Correa, J.D.; Faria, G.A.; Fernandes, L.L. The Oral Microbiota and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Front. Clin. Diabetes Healthc. 2023, 4, 1120920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kaan, A.M.M.; Kahharova, D.; Zaura, E. Acquisition and Establishment of the Oral Microbiota. Periodontology 2000 2021, 86, 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bent, S.J.; Forney, L.J. The Tragedy of the Uncommon: Understanding Limitations in the Analysis of Microbial Diversity. ISME J. 2008, 2, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. DeJong, T.M. A Comparison of Three Diversity Indices Based on Their Components of Richness and Evenness. OIKOS 1975, 26, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Munn, Z.; Aromataris, E.; Tufanaru, C.; Stern, C.; Porritt, K.; Farrow, J.; Lockwood, C.; Stephenson, M.; Moola, S.; Lizarondo, L.; et al. The Development of Software to Support Multiple Systematic Review Types: The Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2019, 17, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Singh, P.; Rajora, P.; Parihar, A.S.; Kaur, P.; Gandhi, P.; Gandhi, V. Evaluation of Effect of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Composition of the Initial Oral Microbiota of Neonates. Adv. Biomed. Res. 2020, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. He, Z.; Wu, J.; Xiao, B.; Xiao, S.; Li, H.; Wu, K. The Initial Oral Microbiota of Neonates among Subjects with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Front. Pediatr. 2019, 7, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dasanayake, A.P.; Chhun, N.; Tanner, A.C.; Craig, R.G.; Lee, M.J.; Moore, A.F.; Norman, R.G. Periodontal Pathogens and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. J. Dent. Res. 2008, 87, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zhang, X.; Wang, P.; Ma, L.; Guo, R.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, P.; Zhao, J.; Liu, J. Differences in the Oral and Intestinal Microbiotas in Pregnant Women Varying in Periodontitis and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Conditions. J. Oral. Microbiol. 2021, 13, 1883382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Yao, H.; Xu, D.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, G. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Increases the Detection Rate and the Number of Oral Bacteria in Pregnant Women. Medicine 2019, 98, e14903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Song, Q.; Xiao, B.; Huang, H.; Ma, L.; Zhang, J.V.; Zhu, Y. Influences of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on the Oral Microbiota in Offspring from Birth to 1 Month Old. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022, 22, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wang, J.; Zheng, J.; Shi, W.; Du, N.; Xu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ji, P.; Zhang, F.; Jia, Z.; Wang, Y.; et al. Dysbiosis of Maternal and Neonatal Microbiota Associated with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Gut 2018, 67, 1614–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Xu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, J.; Sun, Z.; Ran, L.; Ban, Y.; Wang, B.; Hou, X.; Zhai, S.; Ren, L.; et al. Differential Intestinal and Oral Microbiota Features Associated with Gestational Diabetes and Maternal Inflammation. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2020, 319, E247–E253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Li, X.; Zheng, J.; Ma, X.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, J.; Wang, W.; Sun, C.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Chen, H.; et al. The Oral Microbiome of Pregnant Women Facilitates Gestational Diabetes Discrimination. J. Genet. Genom. 2021, 48, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ganiger, K.; Sridharan, S.; Rahul, A.; Satyanarayana, A. Quantitative Analysis of Key Periodontopathic Bacteria in Gestational Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Women. J. Diabetes Metab. Disord. 2019, 18, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cortez, R.V.; Taddei, C.R.; Sparvoli, L.G.; Angelo, A.G.S.; Padilha, M.; Mattar, R.; Daher, S. Microbiome and Its Relation to Gestational Diabetes. Endocrine 2019, 64, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Crusell, M.K.W.; Brink, L.R.; Nielsen, T.; Allin, K.H.; Hansen, T.; Damm, P.; Lauenborg, J.; Hansen, T.H.; Pedersen, O. Gestational Diabetes and the Human Salivary Microbiota: A Longitudinal Study during Pregnancy and Postpartum. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020, 20, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Crusell, M.K.W.; Hansen, T.H.; Nielsen, T.; Allin, K.H.; Ruhlemann, M.C.; Damm, P.; Vestergaard, H.; Rorbye, C.; Jorgensen, N.R.; Christiansen, O.B.; et al. Gestational Diabetes Is Associated with Change in the Gut Microbiota Composition in Third Trimester of Pregnancy and Postpartum. Microbiome 2018, 6, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nardi, G.M.; Grassi, R.; Ndokaj, A.; Antonioni, M.; Jedlinski, M.; Rumi, G.; Grocholewicz, K.; Dus-Ilnicka, I.; Grassi, F.R.; Ottolenghi, L.; et al. Maternal and Neonatal Oral Microbiome Developmental Patterns and Correlated Factors: A Systematic Review—Does the Apple Fall Close to the Tree? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wang, B.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, J.; Hou, X.; Li, J.; Cai, Y.; Sun, Z.; Ban, Y.; Wang, W. Oral and Intestinal Microbial Features in Pregnant Women with Hypothyroidism and Their Correlations with Pregnancy Outcomes. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2020, 319, E1044–E1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tsarna, E.; Christopoulos, P. The Role of Gut Microbiome in Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022, 42, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, J.; Yang, Y.; Yu, N.; Sun, W.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, M. Relationship between Gut Microbiome Characteristics and the Effect of Nutritional Therapy on Glycemic Control in Pregnant Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0267045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Samara, J.; Moossavi, S.; Alshaikh, B.; Ortega, V.A.; Pettersen, V.K.; Ferdous, T.; Hoops, S.L.; Soraisham, A.; Vayalumkal, J.; Dersch-Mills, D.; et al. Supplementation with a Probiotic Mixture Accelerates Gut Microbiome Maturation and Reduces Intestinal Inflammation in Extremely Preterm Infants. Cell Host Microbe 2022, 30, 696–711 e695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Milani, C.; Duranti, S.; Bottacini, F.; Casey, E.; Turroni, F.; Mahony, J.; Belzer, C.; Delgado Palacio, S.; Arboleya Montes, S.; Mancabelli, L.; et al. The First Microbial Colonizers of the Human Gut: Composition, Activities, and Health Implications of the Infant Gut Microbiota. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2017, 81, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kapourchali, F.R.; Cresci, G.A.M. Early-Life Gut Microbiome-The Importance of Maternal and Infant Factors in Its Establishment. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 2020, 35, 386–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Huang, S.; Magny-Normilus, C.; McMahon, E.; Whittemore, R. Systematic Review of Lifestyle Interventions for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal. Nurs. 2022, 51, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hu, P.; Chen, X.; Chu, X.; Fan, M.; Ye, Y.; Wang, Y.; Han, M.; Yang, X.; Yuan, J.; Zha, L.; et al. Association of Gut Microbiota during Early Pregnancy with Risk of Incident Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2021, 106, e4128–e4141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hasain, Z.; Che Roos, N.A.; Rahmat, F.; Mustapa, M.; Raja Ali, R.A.; Mokhtar, N.M. Diet and Pre-Intervention Washout Modifies the Effects of Probiotics on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Peres, M.A.; Macpherson, L.M.D.; Weyant, R.J.; Daly, B.; Venturelli, R.; Mathur, M.R.; Listl, S.; Celeste, R.K.; Guarnizo-Herreno, C.C.; Kearns, C.; et al. Oral Diseases: A Global Public Health Challenge. Lancet 2019, 394, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Children 11 00421 g001
Figure 1. Prisma flow-chart.
Figure 1. Prisma flow-chart.
Children 11 00421 g001
Table 1. Characteristic of included studies focusing on microbiota of infants and mothers.
Table 1. Characteristic of included studies focusing on microbiota of infants and mothers.
Study (Year)He et al. (2019) [31]Singh et al. (2020) [30]Song et al. (2022) [35]Wang et al. (2018) [36]
CountryChinaChinaChinaChina
DesignCOCSCOCS
NB-GDM9752011
NB-nGDM1180349
M-GDM9752077
M-nGDM11803498
Natural birth201554091
C-section004884
Weight NB-GDM (g)2955.67 ± 296.563059.13200 ± 5003410.31
Weight NB-nGDM (g)3257.27 ± 291.383255.33200 ± 4003386.16
Mean age M-GDM28.44 ± 3.43Nr32.6 ± 4.3Nr
Mean age M-nGDM28.64 ± 3.17Nr30.5 ± 3.4Nr
OutcomeComposition of NB microbiotaComposition of NB microbiotaComposition of NB microbiotaComposition of NB and M microbiota
M Dental evaluationNoNoNoNo
Type of sampleNB saliva oral swabsNB saliva oral swabsNB saliva oral swabs at 1 and 30 days from deliveryNB and M saliva oral swabs
Detection method16S rRNA sequencingCulturing16S rRNA sequencing16S rRNA sequencing
Bacteria depleted in N-GDM or M-GDM
(phylum or genus)		NB FirmicutesNB FirmicutesDay 1NB Proteobacteria and Firmicutes; day 30 NB Firmicutes and FlavobacyerialesM and NB Firmicutes. Leptotrichia
Bacteria enriched in N-GDM or M-GDM
(phylum or genus)		NB Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, TenericutesNB Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, TenericutesDay 1 and 30 NB Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, StreptococcusM and NB Proteobacteria and Lautropia
ResultsMicrobial diversity in NB-GDM was 3.48 ± 1.29 mean ± sd, in NB-nGDM 2.30 ± 0.97 (p < 0.05)Microbial diversity in NB-GDM was 3.38 ± 1.21 mean ± sd, in NB-nGDM was 2.91 ± 0.91 (p = 0.02)Microbial diversity at day 1 for NB-GDM was 3.36 ± 2.01 mean ± sd; for NB-nGDM, it was 4.0 ± 2.33 (p = 0.14). At day 30, it was 1.53 ± 1.07 for NB-GDM and 1.62 ± 0.68 for NB-nGDM (p = 0.34)Bray–Curtis distance (calculated using the operational taxonomic unit abundance of the microbiome) was significantly smaller in NB-GDM than in NB-nGDM (p < 0.001)
CS: cross-sectional; CO: cohort; GDM: gestational diabetes mellitus; NB-GDM: infants from GDM mothers; NB-nGDM: infants from non-GDM mothers; M-GDM: mother with GDM; M-nGDM: mother, non-GDM; NB: infants; M: mothers/maternal; Nr: not reported; AUC: area under curve; sd: standard deviation.
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies focusing only on maternal microbiota.
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies focusing only on maternal microbiota.
Study (Year)Dasanayake et al. (2008) [32]Zhang et al. (2021) [33]Yao et al. (2019) [34]Ganiger et al. (2019) [39]Li et al. (2020) [38]Cortez et al. (2019) [40]Xu et al. (2020) [37]Crusell et al. (2020) [41]
CountryUSAChinaChinaIndiaChinaBrazilChinaDenmark
DesignCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCO
M-GDM2214592644263050
M-nGDM240555926674231161
Natural birth184NrNrNrNrNr0Nr
C-section64NrNrNrNrNr61Nr
Weight NB-GDM (g)3039.0NrNrNrNrNr3491 ± 384Nr
Weight NB-nGDM (g)3293.4NrNrNrNrNr3440 ± 322Nr
Age M-GDM28.720–4518–4428.07 ± 3.7531.5 ± 4.5535.0733.7 ± 4.734.4
Age M-nGDM26.620–4518–4424.67 ± 3.69 30.41 ± 5.1728.2332.3 ± 4.333.3
OutcomeMicrobiota composition and other periodontal parameters in M-GDB and M-nGDM with/without periodontitisMicrobiota composition in M-GDB and M-nGDM with/without periodontitis with/without GDMMicrobiota composition in M-GDB and M-nGDM (detection rate and number)Periodontal status in M-GDM and M-nGDMMicrobiota data/composition from M-GDM and M-nGDMMicrobiota composition from M-GDM and M-nGDMMicrobiota data from M-GDM and M-nGDM Microbiota composition from M-GDM and M-nGDM
Dental evaluationYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo
Type of sampleSubgingival plaqueM saliva (1.5 mL) and supra- and subgingival plaqueSupra- and subgingival plaqueSubgingival plaqueM saliva and dental plaqueOral swabsM saliva sample (10 mL)M saliva sample (2 mL)
Detection methodPCR16S rRNA sequencingCulturingPCR16S rRNA sequencing16S rRNA sequencing16S rRNA sequencing16S rRNA sequencing
Bacteria depleted in M-GDM
(phylum or genus)		No difference from M-nGDMM-GDM with periodontitis: FirmicutesM-GDM Oral streptococci, LactobacilliNrM-GDM saliva Selenomonas Leptotrichia F16; M-GDM plaque Streptococcus. VeillonellaNo difference from M-nGDMM-GDM Bifidobacterium LeptotrichiaM-GDM Neisseria, Streptococcus, Actinobacillus paraheamolyticus
Bacteria enriched in M-GDM
(phylum or genus)		No difference from M-nGDMM-GDM with periodontitis Bacteroidetes Spirocheates Tenericutes Synergistes Porphyromonas PrevotellaM-GDM anaerobic bacteria, tubercolosis bacilli, actinomycetescapnocytophagaM-GDM
Porphyromonas Prevotella		M-GDM saliva: Lautropia, Neisseria. Neisseriales; M-GDM plaque: Lautropia. NeisseriaNo difference from M-nGDMM-GDM Neisseria, Porphyromonas. Prevotella. Streptococcus. VeillonellaM-GDM Prevotella Veillonella,
Bacteroidales, Treponema
ResultsPeriodontal parameters were not significantly
different in the two groups (p = 0.38), both for P. gingivalis (p = 0.39) and T. forsythia (p = 0.73)		M-GDM with periodontitis had significant lower alpha diversity (p = 0.021) compared with M-nGDM with periodontitis The number and detection rate of oral bacteria were higher in M-GDM than M-nGDM (Anaerobic bacteria p < 0.01)P. gingivalis and Prevotella intermedia were higher in M-GDM than M-nGDM (p < 0.01 and p = 0.17, respectively)Bray–Curtis intragroup distances of M-GDM group were significantly smaller than both the intragroup M-nGDM and intergroup M-GDM vs. M-nGDM distances (p < 0.001)Microbiota did not show significant differences in phyla and genus among groups.Alpha microbiota diversity was lower in M-GDM compared to M-nGDM (p = 0.04)Number of observed OTUs
decreased from pregnancy to postpartum (p < 0.01,
p < 0.01) in both groups
S: cross-sectional; CO: cohort; GDM: gestational diabetes mellitus; NB-GDM: infants from GDM mothers; NB-nGDM: infants from non-GDM mothers; M-GDM: mother with GDM; M-nGDM: mother, non-GDM; NB: infants; M: mothers/maternal; Nr: not reported; AUC: area under curve; sd: standard deviation.
Table 3. Main characteristic and findings of included studies.
Table 3. Main characteristic and findings of included studies.
TopicOral Microbiota of Newborns from GDM MothersOral Microbiota of GDM Mothers
Methods of microbiota detection16r-RNA sequencing or culturing from oral swabs16r-RNA or rDNA sequencing or PCR or culturing from oral swabs or saliva or plaque
Bacteria depletedMainly FirmicutesMainly Firmicutes, oral Streptococci, Leptotrichia
Bacteria enrichedMainly Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, ProteobacteriaMainly Porphyromonas, Prevotella, Veillonella
Statistical significanceAll studies (4) showed significant differences between NB-GDM and NB-nGDMSix studies of the eight included showed significant differences between M-GDM and M-nGDM.
GDM: gestational diabetes mellitus; NB-GDM: infants from GDM mothers; NB-nGDM: infants from non-GDM mothers; M-GDM: mother with GDM; M-nGDM: mother without GDM; PCR: polymerase chain reaction.
Table 4. Quality assessment of potential risk of bias using JBI Appraisal Checklist for cohort studies (a) and cross-sectional studies (b).
Table 4. Quality assessment of potential risk of bias using JBI Appraisal Checklist for cohort studies (a) and cross-sectional studies (b).
DomainWere the Two Groups Similar and Recruited from the Same Population?Were the Exposures Measured Similarly to Assign People to Both Exposed and Unexposed Groups?Was the Exposure Measured in a Valid and Reliable Way?Were Confounding Factors Identified?Were Strategies to Deal with Confounding Factors Stated?Were the Groups/Participants Free of the Outcome at the Start of the Study (Or at the Moment of Exposure)?Were the Outcomes Measured in a Valid and Reliable Way?Was the Follow-Up Time Reported and Sufficient to Be Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur?Was Follow-Up Complete, and If Not, Were the Reasons for Loss to Follow-Up Described and Explored?Were Strategies to Address Incomplete Follow-Up Utilized?Was Appropriate Statistical Analysis Used?Overall Risk
Authors
Crusell et al. [41] High
He et al. [31] High
Song et al. [35] High
(a)
DomainWere the Criteria for Inclusion in the Sample Clearly Defined?Were the Study Subjects and the Setting Described in Detail?Was the Exposure Measured in a Valid and Reliable Way?Were Objective, Standard Criteria Used for Measurement of the Condition?Were Confounding Factors Identified?Were Strategies to Deal with Confounding Factors Stated?Were the Outcomes Measured in a Valid and Reliable Way?Was Appropriate Statistical Analysis Used?Overall Risk
Authors
Cortez et al. [40] High
Dasanayake et al. [32] High
Ganiger et al. [39] High
Li et al. [38] HighLegend
Singh et al. [30] High
Wang et al. [36] HighYes
Xu et al. [37] HighUnclear
Yao et al. [34] High
Zhang et al. [33] High
(b)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Camoni, N.; Conti, G.; Majorana, A.; Bardellini, E.; Salerno, C.; Wolf, T.G.; Campus, G.; Cagetti, M.G. Oral Microbiota of Infants in Maternal Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review. Children 2024, 11, 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040421

AMA Style

Camoni N, Conti G, Majorana A, Bardellini E, Salerno C, Wolf TG, Campus G, Cagetti MG. Oral Microbiota of Infants in Maternal Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review. Children. 2024; 11(4):421. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040421

Chicago/Turabian Style

Camoni, Nicole, Giulio Conti, Alessandra Majorana, Elena Bardellini, Claudia Salerno, Thomas Gerard Wolf, Guglielmo Campus, and Maria Grazia Cagetti. 2024. "Oral Microbiota of Infants in Maternal Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review" Children 11, no. 4: 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040421

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop