Skip to Content
MicroorganismsMicroorganisms
  • Review
  • Open Access

29 August 2026

The Oral and Nasal Gateway Microbiomes: Salivaomics and Systemic Health at the Airway–Digestive Interface

,
,
and
1
Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern Universty, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
2
Independent Researcher, Mount Pleasant, MI 48858, USA
3
Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
4
Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Aventura Hospital and Medical Center, Aventura, FL 33180, USA

Simple Summary

The oral and nasal microbiomes can be understood as a gateway ecosystem because the oral cavity connects the upper digestive tract and the upper airway. Diet, saliva, oxygen tension, breathing route, host immunity, and microbial ecology meet at this interface. This narrative review examines bacteria, fungi, viruses, and bacteriophages as members of a co-evolved oral–nasal ecosystem that supports health when balanced and contributes to disease when disrupted. Evidence associates oral and nasal dysbiosis with caries, periodontal disease, cardiometabolic disease, adverse pregnancy outcomes, respiratory disease, allergies, and cancer-associated microbial ecology. Salivaomics offers a practical, noninvasive route for earlier biological risk detection in dentistry and respiratory medicine.

Abstract

The oral cavity is a mucosal and mineralized interface shared by the digestive tract and the upper airway. This narrative review proposes the oral–nasal gateway microbiome as a clinically useful model for understanding oral, nasal, and systemic health. The model includes bacteria, fungi, archaea, protozoa, viruses, bacteriophages, microbial metabolites, and host-derived salivary components. Its gateway role is supported by anatomy, continuous salivation, periodontal vascular exposure, oral–gut microbial overlap, nitrate–nitrite–nitric oxide biology, oral and nasal airway interactions, maternal–child microbial transmission, and enrichment of oral organisms in selected distal diseases and tumors. Oral communities respond rapidly to diet, salivary flow, airway physiology, smoking and vaping, xerostomic medications, antibiotics, and antiseptic rinses, and these changes may influence the nasal microbiome. Published evidence summarizes bacterial pathobionts and protective commensals; Candida and other oral fungi; herpesviruses; papillomaviruses; bacteriophages; salivaomics; pregnancy and early-life prevention; probiotics; polyols; remineralization chemistry; environmental exposures; and tumor microbiology. As of manuscript preparation, SalivaDB catalogs 15,821 salivary biomarker entries across 201 diseases and 48 disease categories. The practical endpoint is not sterilization of the oral cavity but restoration of microbial homeostasis, salivary competence, airway stability, dietary balance, and biologically informed, timely prevention.

1. Introduction

The oral cavity contains one of the most diverse microbial ecosystems of the human body. It includes tooth-associated, gingival, tongue, palatal, buccal, tonsillar, saliva-associated, and oropharyngeal niches, each with distinct oxygen gradients, host surfaces, immune exposures, and nutrient flows [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Because the mouth is both the beginning of the digestive tract and a functional part of the upper airway, it should not be treated as an isolated dental compartment. It is a gateway ecosystem through which food, fluids, air, environmental particles, medications, host secretions, and microbes are sampled before they reach the gut, airways, circulation, or the maternal–fetal interface. The nasal gateway microbiome is understudied, yet it directly influences systemic health through mucociliary defense, nasal nitric oxide production, and continuous microbial crosstalk with the oral cavity. Whole-genome deep sequencing of the nasal microbiome has revealed a complex community dominated by Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium, Propionibacterium, and Dolosigranulum species in health, with striking shifts toward Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus, and Moraxella in disease states including allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, and obstructive sleep apnea [8]. The nasal and oral microbiomes share bacterial taxa, exchange organisms through the nasopharynx, and are subject to viral crosstalk, including respiratory viruses that colonize both compartments simultaneously and alter the downstream microbial ecology of each.
This review uses the term “oral gateway microbiome” as an evidence-based organizing model, not merely a metaphor. It describes a co-evolved barrier microbiome that contributes to colonization resistance, mucosal education, mineral homeostasis, nitric oxide biology, wound repair, and metabolic signaling. In health, the oral microbiome is dominated by cooperative microbial networks that restrain pathobionts and maintain host tolerance. In dysbiosis, ecological balance shifts toward acidogenic, proteolytic, invasive, or inflammatory organisms and toward host responses that fail to resolve tissue damage [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16].
This organizing model is deliberately distinct from the oral and nasal gateway microbiome frameworks, and it is important to state explicitly what it adds. The oral–gut axis and oral–lung axis describe trafficking of oral organisms, metabolites, or inflammatory mediators toward a single distal organ system; neither, by itself, specifies a shared anatomic and physiologic checkpoint through which multiple exposure routes (inhaled, ingested, and swallowed) converge before reaching those organs. Oral–nasal microbial continuity documents that the two compartments exchange taxa across the nasopharynx, but continuity is a descriptive observation rather than a functional claim about barrier physiology or directionality. Mucosal microbiome models emphasize cross-site correlation and co-occurrence across many mucosal surfaces without specifying anatomic sequence or a rate-limiting interface. Oral–systemic medicine is the broadest of these frameworks and encompasses any mechanistic link between oral status and systemic disease, including pathways that do not pass through the nasal or airway compartment at all, such as direct hematogenous translocation from periodontal pockets. The gateway construct used here is more specific than any of these: it designates the combined oral and nasal mucosal surfaces as the anatomic checkpoint through which essentially all inhaled, ingested, and swallowed material—and the microorganisms it carries—must pass before reaching the gut, lower airway, systemic circulation, or maternal–fetal interface, and it treats the co-occurring, bidirectionally exchanging oral and nasal communities as a single functional unit rather than as two microbiomes connected by an axis. This checkpoint framing is supported by the anatomic continuity of the aerodigestive tract, direct microbial exchange demonstrated across the oral–nasal interface, and the shared dependence of both compartments on common host defenses, including mucociliary clearance, secretory immunoglobulin A, and antimicrobial peptides [17,18,19]. We use “gateway” rather than “axis” or “network” specifically to emphasize this checkpoint property; the term is not intended to replace the oral–gut axis, oral–lung axis, or oral–systemic medicine studies, each of which addresses a downstream consequence of passage through the gateway rather than the checkpoint itself. Its importance lies in the explicit anatomic and functional unification of the oral and nasal compartments as a single upstream checkpoint, not in the discovery of any single mechanistic link already described by these other frameworks.
Dental medicine has historically recognized the microbial nature of caries and periodontal disease, yet clinical systems often separate oral disease from general medicine. That separation is inconsistent with current evidence. Oral taxa overlap with the intestinal microbiome in a substantial subset of individuals; oral bacteria are continuously swallowed, and inflamed periodontal tissues permit microbial products and inflammatory mediators to reach systemic compartments [9,20,21,22,23,24]. Clinical associations with diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, adverse pregnancy outcomes, respiratory disease, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, neurodegenerative disease, and cancer vary in causal strength, but the evidence increasingly warrants integrating oral biology into systemic prevention [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Research into the nasal gateway microbiome has been sparse, and medicine has been more inclined toward surgical intervention than toward biofilm restoration. Recently published evidence now suggests that nasal dysbiosis may precede or amplify oral dysbiosis, and that pathobionts seeding the nasal passages can descend into the oropharynx and be swallowed, contributing to gastrointestinal colonization by organisms such as Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, and Streptococcus pneumoniae [8,29].
The oral and nasal components of this framework are not supported by equivalent bodies of evidence. Oral microbiome research rests on a substantially larger, more mature, and more clinically validated literature than nasal microbiome research across most of the domains considered in this review. This asymmetry is acknowledged explicitly throughout: claims concerning the nasal gateway microbiome are presented, deliberately, in more hypothesis-oriented language than the corresponding oral microbiome claims, and the two should not be considered equally well established.
This review brings together evidence on oral bacteria, fungi, viruses, bacteriophages, salivaomics, maternal–child prevention, oral–airway biology, probiotics, polyols, environmental exposures, and tumor microbiology. The purpose is to present a clinically useful model that recognizes oral–systemic connections while avoiding single-pathogen explanations or unsupported claims of causality.

2. Scope and Narrative Search Strategy

This article is a narrative review. PubMed, PubMed Central, journal websites, and publisher databases were searched for research on the oral microbiome, oral–gut axis, oral–airway axis, periodontitis, dental caries, oral mycobiome, oral virome, bacteriophages, salivaomics, salivary biomarkers, maternal oral health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, probiotics, prebiotics, xylitol, polyols, microplastics, tumor microbiome, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Porphyromonas gingivalis. We prioritized primary studies, systematic reviews, consensus statements, and recent mechanistic reviews. The goal was mechanistic and translational synthesis rather than quantitative pooling.
Searches covered January 2000 through March 2026, with emphasis on research published after 2010; no formal date limit was applied to foundational mechanistic or anatomic studies. Records were screened for relevance to the oral or nasal microbiome and human health outcomes; case reports without mechanistic or population context, non-peer-reviewed sources, and studies not available in English were excluded. Because this is a narrative rather than a systematic review, study selection was not exhaustive; this is acknowledged as a methodological limitation in Section 15.

3. Definition and Evolutionary Biology of the Oral and Nasal Gateway Microbiomes

3.1. A Co-Evolved Airway–Digestive Interface

The oral microbiome can be defined as the co-evolved microbial and viral ecosystem of the mouth and oropharynx, embedded in saliva and biofilm matrices, interacting with mineralized tooth surfaces, mucosal epithelium, gingival crevicular fluid, immune cells, dietary substrates, airflow, and swallowed secretions. This definition differs from narrower plaque-centered definitions by recognizing the oral cavity as a joint airway–digestive interface. The teeth and gingiva create non-shedding mineralized surfaces that permit the formation of mature biofilms, while the tongue dorsum, tonsillar region, palate, and saliva connect the oral cavity to the nasopharynx, oropharynx, esophagus, stomach, lungs, and gut [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,30].
The oral gateway microbiome is therefore specialized for intermittent nutrient pulses, mechanical shear, oxygen variation, pH cycling, host antimicrobial peptides, immunoglobulin A, nitrate-rich vegetables, salivary mucins, and repeated microbial immigration from food, water, air, hands, kissing, family contact, and dental procedures. This ecology explains why oral communities can change quickly when eating frequency, exposure to fermentable carbohydrates, breathing route, salivary flow, medications, or antimicrobial habits change [6,7,31,32,33,34,35,36].

3.2. Oral, Nasal, and Placental Gateway Microbiomes

The gateway microbiome concept extends beyond the mouth. The nasal microbiome is an airway gateway that conditions inhaled air, supports colonization resistance, maintains mucociliary and immune homeostasis, and interacts with nasal nitric oxide biology. Whole-genome deep sequencing has characterized the nasal microbiome, identifying Staphylococcus epidermidis, Corynebacterium accolens, Propionibacterium acnes, and Dolosigranulum pigrum as dominant commensals that contribute to competitive exclusion and mucosal immune education in healthy adults [8]. Disruption of this commensal community, documented in allergic rhinitis, asthma, and obstructive sleep apnea, is associated with enrichment of Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Streptococcus pneumoniae [8,29]. The nasal and oral microbiomes are anatomically continuous through the nasopharynx and interact via shared airflow, microbial migration, and viral crosstalk; respiratory viruses that alter one compartment predictably reshape the other, establishing a bidirectional ecological vulnerability that has not been adequately incorporated into clinical practice [29]. The nasal microbiome also exerts systemic effects: dysbiosis in the nasal passages has been mechanistically linked to allergic sensitization, airway inflammation in asthma, and upper airway instability contributing to obstructive sleep apnea, in part through altered mucosal immune signaling and reduced nasal nitric oxide production [8,37]. The placental or maternal–fetal interface is a gateway in pregnancy through which microbial DNA, microbial metabolites, extracellular vesicles, inflammatory mediators, and, in pathologic settings, viable organisms may influence fetal immune priming and pregnancy outcomes [38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. The placental microbiome remains debated. Aagaard and colleagues reported a low-biomass placental microbiome that was most similar to the oral microbiome [38]. Later contamination-controlled studies argued that a healthy term placenta does not contain a typical resident microbiome [39]. These conclusions can be reconciled clinically by distinguishing a stable resident placental microbiota from a maternal–fetal microbial-signaling interface. The latter is supported by studies of oral-associated organisms in adverse pregnancy contexts, maternal microbial extracellular vesicles, immune activation, and microbiota-derived metabolites [40,41,42,43,44].

3.3. Responsiveness to Airway and Eating Patterns

A defining feature of the oral and nasal gateway microbiomes is their rapid responsiveness to airway and dietary conditions. Frequent consumption of sucrose, refined starch, acidic beverages, and ultra-processed foods selects for acidogenic and aciduric communities, including mutans streptococci and lactate-utilizing microflora that promote caries. Dietary nitrate from vegetables enriches nitrate-reducing taxa that support the nitrate–nitrite–nitric oxide pathway. Fasting, circadian timing, hydration, and salivary stimulation alter clearance and pH buffering [31,32,33,34,35,36,44,45,46,47,48,49].
Airway physiology is equally relevant. Nasal obstruction and mouth breathing dehydrate oral surfaces, alter oxygen exposure and salivary pellicle formation, and may favor the growth of inflammatory biofilms. Obstructive sleep apnea exposes oral and periodontal tissues to intermittent hypoxia, oxidative stress, sympathetic activation, and inflammatory signaling. Recent studies and reviews of obstructive sleep apnea, periodontitis, and oral microbiota support the view that airway state and oral dysbiosis interact rather than operate as separate clinical domains [50,51,52]. Table 1 lists representative components of the oral gateway microbiome.
Table 1. Components of the oral gateway microbiome and representative roles.

4. Bacterial Members: Commensals, Pathobionts, and Ecological Function

Oral bacterial communities are spatially organized and metabolically interdependent. Early colonizers such as Streptococcus sanguinis, Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus gordonii, Actinomyces spp., Rothia spp., and Neisseria spp. contribute to biofilm architecture and, in many contexts, are compatible with health. Veillonella spp. metabolize lactate and participate in cross-feeding. Fusobacterium nucleatum acts as a bridging organism that links early and late colonizers, contributes to coaggregation, and can become a systemic pathobiont when dysbiotic contexts permit invasion or distal enrichment [1,2,6,9,11,12,13,14,15].
Streptococcus mutans illustrates diet-responsive dysbiosis. Its acid production, acid tolerance, extracellular polysaccharide synthesis, and biofilm competitiveness increase with frequent exposure to fermentable carbohydrates. S. mutans is neither the only caries organism nor merely a harmless commensal; it is a disease-associated member of a broader acidogenic community. The caries model, therefore, supports an ecological rather than a single-pathogen interpretation [31,32,33,53,54,55,56].
Periodontitis provides the clearest example of polymicrobial dysbiosis. The red complex organisms P. gingivalis, T. denticola, and T. forsythia remain clinically relevant, but periodontal destruction is better explained by polymicrobial synergy and dysbiosis than by a single pathogen acting alone. P. gingivalis can modify complement and Toll-like receptor signaling, impair neutrophil control, and reshape the community despite low abundance. Orange-complex organisms such as F. nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, and Campylobacter rectus help form transitional biofilm networks that support later anaerobic communities [11,12,13,14,15,16,53].
The oral gateway model also recognizes beneficial functions. Nitrate-reducing bacteria such as Neisseria and Rothia participate in oral nitrate-to-nitrite conversion, linking the mouth to nitric oxide biology and vascular function. Excessive daily antiseptic suppression can reduce nitrate reduction and may alter blood pressure responses, underscoring why a healthy oral microbiome cannot be equated with a sterile mouth [45,46,47,48,49].

5. Fungi and Cross-Kingdom Biofilms

The oral mycobiome is less abundant than the bacteriome but clinically relevant. Candida albicans can exist as a commensal yeast, but changes in host immunity, salivary flow, denture use, antibiotics, diabetes, inhaled corticosteroids, chemotherapy, and dietary substrates can promote hyphal growth, biofilm formation, and mucosal disease [57,58,59,60,61]. Fungal–bacterial interactions are central to this behavior. C. albicans adheres to oral streptococci, contributes to extracellular matrix structure, and can alter carbohydrate metabolism and biofilm architecture in severe early childhood caries and denture stomatitis [59,60,61].
The fungal component also matters for systemic health because candidiasis is a marker of immune and metabolic vulnerability, particularly in diabetes, xerostomia, immunosuppression, HIV, cancer therapy, and older adults. In oral squamous cell carcinoma and potentially malignant disorders, mycobiome shifts may reflect altered mucosal immunity, local metabolism, and changes in the epithelial barrier. Current evidence does not justify treating the oral mycobiome as a primary cause of systemic disease, but it supports including it in oral–systemic risk assessment [57,58,59,60,61].

6. Viruses and the Phageome

The oral virome includes eukaryotic viruses and bacteriophages. Eukaryotic viruses such as herpes simplex virus, cytomegalovirus, Epstein–Barr virus, and human papillomaviruses influence oral health through latency, reactivation, immune modulation, ulceration, and oncogenesis. Herpesviruses have been studied in periodontitis because they can modulate immune responses and may create conditions permissive for bacterial overgrowth. HPV is causally linked to a subset of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas, connecting the oral–airway gateway to cancer prevention through vaccination and screening awareness [62,63,64,65,66,67,68].
Bacteriophages are not passive passengers. They shape bacterial abundance, mediate gene transfer and bacterial competition, interact with CRISPR-Cas systems, and influence biofilm stability. Oral phage communities appear person-specific and persistent, yet they also respond to disease states and environmental exposures. Their ability to carry auxiliary metabolic genes or antimicrobial resistance determinants places them at the center of microbial ecology, especially as precision phage therapy and microbiome editing move toward clinical translation [66,67,68].
A complete definition of the oral gateway microbiome must therefore include bacteria, fungi, viruses, and phages. A bacteria-only model misses cross-kingdom biofilm behavior, herpes viral immune effects, HPV-associated cancer, and phage-mediated microbial evolution.

7. Mechanistic Routes from Oral Gateway Dysbiosis to Systemic Biology

The oral–gut axis is a principal mechanism. Segata and colleagues showed that oral and stool communities overlap in many Human Microbiome Project subjects, supporting movement between oral and intestinal habitats [9]. Experimental oral administration of P. gingivalis in mice altered gut microbiota composition, downregulated tight junction genes, increased serum endotoxin levels, and resulted in detectable bacterial DNA in the liver before broader systemic inflammatory changes were observed [20]. These findings support a causal pathway by which oral pathobionts can alter the gut barrier and immune–metabolic physiology under experimental conditions. Table 2 summarizes the different evidence-supported links between the oral gateway microbiome and systemic health.
Table 2. Evidence-supported routes linking the oral gateway microbiome to systemic biology.
Hematogenous dissemination is another route. Periodontal inflammation increases epithelial ulceration within periodontal pockets and exposes vascular surfaces to microbial products. Transient bacteremia can occur after chewing, toothbrushing, periodontal procedures, and episodes of inflammation. The clinical implication is not that every bacteremia causes disease, but that repeated microbial and inflammatory exposures may contribute to cumulative systemic burden in susceptible hosts [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
Host response biology is central. Periodontitis is not only an infection; it is a dysregulated host–microbe interaction. Neutrophil hyperactivity, complement dysregulation, inflammasome activity, IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, prostaglandin signaling, osteoclast activation, and impaired resolution all link local dysbiosis to systemic inflammatory tone [11,12,13,14,15,16,69,70,71,72].

8. Oral Disease Burden and Consequences of Ignoring the Gateway Role

Oral diseases are among the most common non-communicable diseases. Global analyses and WHO summaries estimate that oral diseases affect more than 3.5 billion people, with untreated dental caries, severe periodontal disease, tooth loss, and oral cancer contributing to pain, infection, missed school and work, nutritional impairment, social stigma, and healthcare costs [73,74,75]. This persistent burden reflects more than inadequate surgical intervention capacity. It reflects a failure to treat oral disease as a microbial, dietary, airway, salivary, behavioral, and systemic problem.
Ignoring the oral gateway microbiome has clinical costs. Caries is often treated as a localized enamel event rather than as a sign of dietary ecology, microbial acidification, salivary dysfunction, and family transmission. Periodontitis is often treated as a gum problem rather than as a chronic inflammatory disease that may complicate diabetes, vascular health, pregnancy, and aging. Xerostomia is often treated after damage occurs, despite its role as a gateway failure of lubrication, buffering, antimicrobial defense, and remineralization. This repair-dominant model delays prevention until microbial and inflammatory disease has become structurally visible.
A gateway model suggests that dental professionals should measure, explain, and manage oral microbial ecology with the same consideration they apply to blood pressure, glucose, and airway assessment. It also suggests that medical professionals consider oral infections and dysbiosis when evaluating chronic systemic disease.

10. Maternal–Child Health and Intergenerational Oral–Systemic Prevention

Pregnancy is a practical window for oral gateway intervention. Maternal periodontal inflammation, caries risk, salivary mutans streptococci, dietary frequency, airway health, sleep, and access to care can influence maternal inflammation, the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, vertical microbial transmission, infant colonization, early childhood caries, and long-term health trajectories [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96].
The maternal–fetal interface should be addressed with scientific precision. The existence of a stable resident placental microbiome in healthy pregnancy remains debated [38,39]. However, oral organisms and oral-associated bacterial signals are repeatedly implicated in adverse pregnancy contexts. F. nucleatum is a prominent example because oral strains have been linked to intrauterine infection, preterm birth, stillbirth, neonatal sepsis, and inflammatory pregnancy complications in case reports, mechanistic work, and reviews [40,41,42,43,44,90,91,92].
Maternal oral health also affects infant microbial acquisition. Maternal xylitol chewing gum trials from Finland and Japan showed delayed or reduced mutans streptococci acquisition by children and reductions in childhood caries. The PPaX cluster-randomized trial in Malawi evaluated xylitol chewing gum among more than 10,000 pregnant participants and reported reductions in preterm birth and low birth weight compared with standard prenatal care plus education [93,94,95]. These findings support investigating prenatal modulation of the oral microbiome as a public health strategy, particularly in settings with limited access to dental care.
The maternal–child research argues for a bundled prevention model: prenatal oral screening, caries and periodontal risk assessment, xylitol gum or other polyol strategies where appropriate, dietary counseling, saliva-sharing education, airway and sleep screening, probiotics or prebiotics when evidence and safety support use, infant dental home linkage, and integration with Medicaid, WIC, HRSA, obstetric, pediatric, and dental systems [89]. This model treats early oral disease as an intergenerational microbial and inflammatory risk marker rather than a minor pediatric inconvenience.

11. Tumor Microbiome, Oral Pathobionts, and Cancer Ecology

Cancer biology increasingly recognizes tumors as ecosystems containing malignant cells, immune cells, stromal cells, endothelial cells, extracellular matrix, metabolites, viruses, fungi, and bacteria. The tumor microbiome is tumor type-specific and often intracellular. Nejman and colleagues studied 1526 tumors and adjacent normal tissues across seven cancer types and reported distinct microbial compositions by tumor type, with intratumoral bacteria present within both cancer and immune cells [97]. This study demonstrates the presence of microbes in tumors and now leads us to investigate how tumor-specific microbial communities influence immunity, metabolism, drug response, and prognosis.
Bullman’s work on F. nucleatum provides a direct connection between the oral microbiome and tumor ecology. Bullman and colleagues showed that Fusobacterium and co-occurring microbes persisted in colorectal cancer metastases; in xenograft models, metronidazole reduced Fusobacterium load, cancer cell proliferation, and tumor growth [98]. Subsequent work identified a specific F. nucleatum subsp. animalis clade (Fna C2) enriched in the colorectal cancer niche, with genetic features consistent with gastrointestinal colonization and metabolic adaptation [99].
The cancer literature should not yet be reduced to a claim that oral pathogens cause cancer. A more conservative model suggests that oral pathobionts contribute to tumor-promoting conditions through adhesion, invasion, β-catenin signaling, immune evasion, autophagy, stemness, metabolite production, extracellular vesicles, treatment resistance, and inflammatory remodeling. F. nucleatum, P. gingivalis, and S. mutans have each been studied in cancer-associated contexts, particularly colorectal, oral, pancreatic, and aerodigestive cancers [97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]. One methodological controversy within this literature should be noted explicitly: a high-profile report linking microbial signatures to multiple cancer types was retracted in 2024 after independent reanalysis identified data processing errors; a related follow-up analysis by the original authors has since defended the robustness of cancer microbiome signals under a broader range of methodological evaluation, but this remains an active and unresolved methodological dispute rather than settled evidence [104].
For this reason, cancer-related claims should currently be approached with caution. The presence of oral organisms in tumors or metastases does not necessarily prove that those organisms initiated cancer, but it does identify microbial ecology as one component of tissue-specific tumor biology and a plausible target for mechanistic research [97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105].

12. Salivaomics and Biologically Integrated Dentistry

Saliva is a diagnostic biofluid, not simply moisture. Whole saliva contains microbial DNA, host DNA, RNA, microRNA, circular RNA, long noncoding RNA, proteins, peptides, hormones, enzymes, antibodies, glycoproteins, metabolites, lipids, electrolytes, inflammatory mediators, cell-free DNA, circulating tumor DNA signals, extracellular vesicles, exosomal biomarkers, and viable and nonviable microorganisms [106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115].
The scale of salivaomics is now measurable. Early salivaomics work described a core salivary transcriptome of approximately 180 messenger RNAs and a core salivary proteome of 1166 proteins. SalivaDB, a curated database of human salivary biomarkers, contains 15,821 entries for 201 diseases and 48 disease categories, including 7729 unique salivary biomarkers as of manuscript preparation. Entries include 6067 proteins, 3987 metabolites, 2909 microbes, 2272 miRNAs, and 586 genes; 742 biomarkers are reported as exosome-derived (see Table 3) [106].
Table 3. Salivaomics domains and clinical relevance.
The diagnostic implications for dentistry are broad but heterogeneous in maturity. Salivary diagnostics for caries risk, periodontal disease activity, peri-implant risk, oral fungal overgrowth, and viral reactivation are the most analytically and clinically advanced applications. Saliva can also support the investigation of oral cancer risk, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular biomarkers, neurodegenerative biomarkers, inflammatory burden, and treatment response, but for these domains the supporting evidence is presently associative and exploratory rather than clinically validated, and near-term diagnostic deployment should not be inferred from biomarker discovery alone (see Section 15). Saliva also supports microbiome sequencing, metabolomics, proteomics, host response profiling, and computational pattern recognition. Used responsibly, salivaomics can move dental practice from delayed structural repair toward earlier, noninvasive, clinically applicable risk detection [106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115].
Implementation should be carefully considered. Saliva varies with time of day, fasting, hydration, flow rate, menstrual cycle, pregnancy status, medications, mouth breathing, recent brushing, dental treatment, smoking, exercise, and collection method. Tests should be analytically valid, clinically validated, interpretable, and linked to an action plan. Salivaomics will augment examination, radiography, periodontal charting, airway screening, and medical history rather than replace them. Because saliva reflects not only oral microbial composition but also drainage of nasal secretions, immune activation, metabolic state, and host response signaling, validated salivary panels should be investigated that may enable detection of airway microbiome shifts, including nasal dysbiosis patterns associated with allergic sensitization, asthma exacerbation, and OSA progression, before structural disease becomes clinically apparent [106,110].

13. Probiotics, Prebiotics, Polyols, and Microbiome Restoration

13.1. Probiotics and Prebiotics

Probiotics are live microorganisms that confer a health benefit when administered in adequate amounts. In oral health, candidate probiotics include Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus paracasei, Bifidobacterium spp., Streptococcus salivarius K12 or M18, and other strain-specific candidates [116]. Mechanisms include adhesion competition, bacteriocin production, pH modulation, immune regulation, support of the epithelial barrier, a reduction in volatile sulfur compounds, interference with pathogen coaggregation, and recovery of colonization resistance after disruption [117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125]. In nasal health, far less has been published on targeted nasal probiotic strategies, even though gut probiotics have been extensively studied, and the nasal microbiome is equally accessible and arguably more directly relevant to respiratory, allergic, and airway disease. The nasal gateway microbiome has remained more elusive because sampling is more complex, the community is of lower biomass, and clinical interest has historically favored pharmaceutical or surgical management of rhinosinusitis and allergic airway disease over microbiome restoration [126]. Whether the principles governing oral and gut probiotic restoration extend to the nasal passage remains an untested hypothesis rather than an evidence-based conclusion; mechanistic plausibility grounded in shared mucosal biology does not, by itself, establish the efficacy or safety of nasal probiotic strategies. Candidate nasal probiotics include Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus casei, and Streptococcus salivarius, which have demonstrated colonization resistance activity against nasal respiratory pathogens in early trials; administration via nasal spray or nebulization may offer a practical delivery route that bypasses gastrointestinal degradation [127]. The scarcity of nasal probiotic research relative to gut and oral research likely reflects the absence of an organized clinical specialty invested in nasal microbiome restoration, the absence of a diagnostic framework analogous to salivary microbiome profiling, and the lower commercial investment in non-antibiotic nasal therapeutics. These are structural gaps rather than biological barriers, and they must be resolved if the nasal gateway microbiome is to receive the same preventive and therapeutic attention as its oral counterpart. Oral probiotics may indirectly benefit the nasal passages through the gut–airway immune axis; probiotic supplementation in infancy and pregnancy has been associated with reductions in upper respiratory infections, allergic sensitization, and asthma risk, outcomes consistent with improvements in systemic mucosal immune programming rather than direct nasal colonization [127,128]. This systemic effect of probiotics on respiratory outcomes supports a multi-compartment model of microbiome restoration spanning dentistry, otolaryngology, pulmonology, and immunology.
The evidence for oral probiotics is promising but heterogeneous, partly because intervention protocols vary substantially. Most trials and meta-analyses show reductions in salivary S. mutans, gingival inflammation, bleeding indices, or periodontal pathogen burden, while others show modest or inconsistent clinical effects. Benefits depend on strain, dose, delivery vehicle, baseline disease state, diet, salivary flow, adherence, and whether the probiotic is used alone or as an adjunct to mechanical debridement and behavioral change [117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125]. The most significant inconsistency is the duration of probiotic use: trials reporting benefit commonly maintain probiotic use for 14–60 days before outcome assessment, whereas trials reporting insignificance may use only a 5-day course or a low dose (few colony-forming units [CFU]) [129]. A five-day probiotic intervention may be insufficient to detect sustained gastrointestinal or microbiome-mediated benefits. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 52 randomized controlled trials in irritable bowel syndrome, significant therapeutic effects became apparent after approximately four weeks of supplementation, supporting an intervention period of at least 28 days for comparable clinical endpoints [130,131].
Prebiotics provide substrates that support beneficial microbes or beneficial microbial functions. In dentistry, prebiotics include dietary fibers, arginine, nitrate-rich vegetables, and emerging oral care substrates that promote alkali generation, nitrate reduction, or commensal fitness without feeding acidogenic disease communities. Synbiotics combine probiotics and prebiotics but should be tested as product-specific interventions rather than assumed effective by category [117,121].
Pregnancy and infancy require additional care. Probiotics have been studied in pregnancy, gestational diabetes, infant immune outcomes, eczema risk, and the prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in selected neonatal populations. Safety is generally favorable in healthy pregnancies, but risk–benefit decisions should be individualized for immunocompromised patients, critically ill infants, and very low-birth-weight newborns [125,126,127,128].

13.2. Polyols and Xylitol

Polyols matter because diet shapes oral ecology. Xylitol is nonfermentable or poorly fermentable by mutans streptococci, can reduce acidogenic selection pressure, stimulates salivary flow when delivered as chewing gum or lozenges, and has been shown to reduce mutans streptococci transmission in maternal–child studies [93,94,95,96,132,133,134]. Erythritol has also demonstrated anticaries and antibiofilm effects in experimental and clinical literature. Current evidence supports dose-specific, indication-specific use rather than a one-polyol-fits-all approach. Dental doses are generally well tolerated, but high intake can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, and xylitol is toxic to dogs [133,134,135,136]. The evidence base for xylitol differs sharply by route. In oral health and maternal–child transmission, randomized clinical trials support xylitol, and it is reasonably established in those contexts. Extension to the nasal passage rests on more than mechanism alone. In animal models, xylitol irrigation reduces pneumococcal nasal colonization in rats and enhances bacterial killing in the rabbit maxillary sinus [137,138], consistent with its documented ability to lower the salt concentration of airway surface liquid and unmask innate antimicrobial defenses [139]. Xylitol nasal sprays and irrigations have also demonstrated in vitro and early clinical activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, and Streptococcus pneumoniae, the same organisms that dominate nasal dysbiosis and feed forward into oral and gastrointestinal pathobiont colonization [139]. Clinical evidence now extends well beyond mechanism: a pilot study and several randomized or prospective trials of xylitol nasal irrigation in chronic rhinosinusitis report modest but consistent improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores over saline alone, although at least one trial found no additional benefit of xylitol over saline irrigation, and a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that xylitol nasal irrigation outperforms saline irrigation in chronic sinusitis on pooled analysis [140,141,142,143,144,145]. In children, a prospective two-center cohort found that xylitol nasal spray reduced recurrent acute otitis media, extending the mother-to-child mutans-transmission logic described above to the nasal compartment and to a different pathogen [146]. A 90-day inhalation toxicology study found no adverse mucosal or systemic effects in rats at xylitol aerosol doses well above intended clinical exposure [147], and reviews of xylitol in otolaryngology practice describe it as a low-risk adjunct across these indications [148]. This nasal literature remains smaller, more heterogeneous in dose and irrigation protocol, and more concentrated in chronic rhinosinusitis than the oral and maternal–child evidence, and mechanistic work connecting xylitol’s antibacterial action to durable, compositional shifts in the nasal microbiome itself, rather than to symptom relief, is still limited [149]. Restoring nasal commensal ecology in parallel with oral microbiome restoration may amplify the benefits of each intervention and reduce the burden of recurrent upper respiratory infections, allergic inflammation, and the persistent airway dysbiosis that predisposes patients to obstructive sleep apnea. The nasal microbiome may, in fact, exert an underappreciated upstream influence on the oral microbiome: a dysbiotic nasal passage continuously inoculates the oropharynx and, through swallowing, the gastrointestinal tract, seeding pathogens and pathobionts into compartments where oral dysbiosis has already compromised colonization resistance.

13.3. Remineralization Chemistry and Preserving Commensals

Restoring the oral gateway microbiome also requires mineral and salivary support. Fluoride, hydroxyapatite, arginine, calcium–phosphate systems, and polyphosphates can influence the mineral–biofilm interface. Studies of sodium trimetaphosphate and sodium hexametaphosphate suggest that these agents can act as fluoride-potentiating interfacial modifiers, with nanosized formulations showing promise in enamel demineralization and remineralization models [150,151,152]. These strategies should be integrated with microbial, salivary, and dietary management rather than treated as replacements for ecology-based prevention.
Antimicrobial stewardship is essential. Chlorhexidine, povidone–iodine, essential-oil rinses, antibiotics, and other antimicrobials have appropriate indications. The goal, however, is not chronic sterilization. Long-term indiscriminate suppression can reduce beneficial taxa, alter nitrate reduction, and potentially enrich opportunistic organisms. Dentistry needs the same antimicrobial discipline used in medicine: targeted indication, duration, follow-up, and restoration of microbial homeostasis [48,49,50,51,52]. Table 4 summarizes the ecological intervention framework for homeostasis of the oral gateway microbiome.
Table 4. Ecological intervention framework for oral gateway microbiome.

14. Environmental Exposures, Microplastics, and Materials Science

The oral cavity is also a gateway for environmental particles. Microplastics and nanoplastics can enter through bottled water, food packaging, inhaled dust, consumer products, and potentially dental materials or procedures [153,154,155].Current evidence supports biologic plausibility rather than definitive oral causality. Relevant mechanisms include oxidative stress, NF-κB activation, inflammasome signaling, impaired epithelial repair, macrophage and T-cell polarization, biofilm matrix effects, antibiotic resistance gene transfer, and barrier dysfunction [156,157,158,159,160,161].
This field matters because plastic particles may act as surfaces for microbial biofilms and horizontal gene transfer. Recent reviews propose contamination-controlled measurements of microplastics in saliva, plaque, gingival crevicular fluid, calculus, and tissue; spatial imaging of particles in oral biofilms; and host–microbe co-culture studies to determine whether particles aggravate dysbiosis or periodontal inflammation [156,158]. Inhaled toxicants also link airway exposure to mitochondrial and inflammatory pathways in oral–systemic disease models [159,160]. More research into nasal microplastics is needed; current evidence of the nasal compartment’s microplastic burden is extremely limited, and a dedicated sampling methodology for the sinonasal mucosa has not been standardized. Given that the nasal passage is the primary filter for inhaled particulates and that microplastic particles have already been documented in oral and cardiovascular tissues, the nasal microbiome likely represents a convergence point between inhaled particle exposure and microbial dysbiosis, a relationship that remains almost entirely unexplored [161].

15. Evidence Synthesis, Evidence-Level Classification, and Limitations of the Evidence

15.1. Evidence-Level Classification of Major Oral–Systemic and Nasal–Systemic Relationships

This narrative review includes heterogeneous evidence due to a lack of consistent research on the relatively new concept of the role of oral and nasal microbiomes in health. Much more information has been published on the role of oral health in systemic health than the nasal gateway (see Table 5).
Table 5. Evidence-level classification of major oral–systemic and nasal–systemic relationships discussed in this review.

15.2. Limitations of the Evidence and of This Review

This review has several limitations that should inform its interpretation. First, this is a narrative, not a systematic, review; study selection was not exhaustive, was not independently duplicated by a second screener, and is therefore subject to selection and citation bias despite the search parameters described in Section 2. Second, the evidence synthesized here is markedly heterogeneous in design, ranging from mechanistic cell culture and animal model work to large observational cohorts to randomized controlled trials; Table 5 makes this heterogeneity evident. Third, most of the oral–systemic and nasal-systemic relationships discussed are observational or mechanistic; observational association does not establish causation, and confounding by shared risk factors (smoking, diet, socioeconomic status, access to care, comorbid disease) is a plausible alternative explanation for some of the associations reviewed. Fourth, methodological heterogeneity across the underlying microbiome literature, in sampling site, sequencing depth and platform, bioinformatic pipeline, and definition of dysbiosis, limits direct comparison across studies and across the domains reviewed here. Finally, translating any of the relationships in Table 5 into clinical practice, including combined oral–nasal microbiome assessment, requires prospective evidence that such assessment changes diagnosis, management, or outcomes; no such evidence yet exists, and this review’s synthesis should be read as hypothesis-generating for that purpose rather than as clinical guidance.

16. Research Agenda

16.1. Research Goals

  • Define the healthy oral and nasal gateway microbiome by site, age, sex, pregnancy state, diet, airway phenotype, saliva flow, and circadian timing.
  • Move beyond bacteria-only assays by including fungi, eukaryotic viruses, bacteriophages, metabolites, extracellular vesicles, and host response markers.
  • Use longitudinal designs to determine whether oral or nasal dysbiosis precedes systemic biomarker changes, pregnancy complications, cardiometabolic deterioration, or tumor-associated microbial signatures.
  • Validate salivaomics panels with standardized collection protocols, clinically relevant thresholds, reproducibility, and action-linked treatment pathways.
  • Test microbiome-restorative interventions as bundled ecology programs that combine biofilm control, diet, airway, sleep, salivary support, probiotics/prebiotics, polyols, and remineralization chemistry.
  • Develop maternal–child trials that assess maternal oral microbiome, infant colonization, caries, preterm birth, low birth weight, growth, neurodevelopment, and cardiometabolic risk markers.
  • Investigate the origins of the tumor microbiome, including oral sources, intracellular localization, functional genomics, treatment response, and opportunities for targeted microbial modulation.
  • Study oral and nasal phage ecology as regulators of bacterial fitness, movement of antimicrobial resistance genes, and precision microbial therapeutics.
  • Develop nasal probiotic strategies using strains with documented nasal commensal activity, test delivery routes including nasal spray and nebulization, and evaluate nasal microbiome restoration as a complement to oral microbiome restoration in patients with recurrent upper respiratory infection, allergic rhinitis, and obstructive sleep apnea.
  • Investigate the nasal and paranasal sinus microbiome as a modulator of sinonasal nitric oxide production and systemic cardiovascular physiology, with particular attention to whether nasal dysbiosis compounds the cardiovascular risk associated with suppression of the oral nitrate reduction pathway.
  • Characterize the nasal and nasopharyngeal microbiome in the context of nasal, nasopharyngeal, or oropharyngeal cancer, and determine whether microbial profiles can contribute to early detection, risk stratification, or treatment response monitoring in populations at elevated cancer risk.

16.2. Translational Goals

The clinical endpoint is not sterilization of the mouth or nares. The endpoint is microbial homeostasis, resilient barrier function, salivary competence, airway stability, dietary ecology, early diagnosis, and interprofessional prevention. This is the practical meaning of the oral–nasal gateway microbiome. Achieving that endpoint will require cooperation that currently does not exist at a structural level. Otolaryngologists and dentists manage adjacent and functionally interdependent ecosystems, yet they rarely coordinate care for shared patients. A patient with chronic rhinosinusitis and periodontal disease is experiencing dysbiosis at both ends of an anatomically connected mucosal system; treating one without the other is biologically incomplete. ENT and dental professionals must develop shared screening frameworks, referral pathways, and co-management protocols that reflect the nasal–oral–systemic continuum described in this review. As the evidence summarized in Section 15 matures, a reasonable long-term goal is for patients to receive periodic airway screening and oral microbiome risk assessment, analogous to blood pressure and glucose measurement; consistent with Section 9.3 and Section 15.2, this is a translational goal rather than a current standard of care, since no prospective evidence yet shows that combined assessment changes diagnosis, management, or outcomes. Delayed recognition of untreated OSA, unchecked oral dysbiosis, nasal pathobiont seeding of the gastrointestinal tract, and progressive systemic inflammatory burden may plausibly be mitigated by earlier, interprofessional attention, although this hypothesis has not been tested prospectively. Validated, standardized salivary diagnostics could enable earlier detection of airway microbiome shifts, systemic disease trajectories, and the nasal–oral–gut pathobiont burden that currently goes undetected until structural damage has occurred. Integrating salivaomics into dental and airway visits, paired with nasal microbiome assessment and xylitol-based nasal and oral prebiotic strategies, is a translational research priority for biologically informed, interdisciplinary prevention, pending the prospective validation called for in Section 15.2.

17. Conclusions

Current evidence, summarized by evidence level in Table 5, supports viewing the oral microbiome as a gateway influencing systemic physiology and distal microbial ecosystems, while the strength of that evidence varies considerably across the clinical domains reviewed and is, at present, weaker for the nasal component of the model than for the oral component. It is a specialized, co-evolved airway–digestive ecosystem that protects the host when balanced and contributes to oral and systemic disease when dysbiotic. Its gateway status is supported by anatomy, continuous salivary flow and swallowing, vascular exposure through inflamed periodontal surfaces, oral–gut microbial transfer, oral–airway interactions, nitrate–nitrite–nitric oxide physiology, maternal–child microbial transmission, and the appearance of oral organisms in distal diseases and tumor ecosystems.
Bacteria, fungi, viruses, and bacteriophages all belong in this model. A comprehensive oral–systemic model must include commensal protection, cross-kingdom biofilms, phage-mediated microbial evolution, human viral oncogenesis and immune modulation, salivary biomarkers, host response signaling, and environmental exposures. Oral health can no longer be reduced to teeth, gingiva, plaque removal, or restorative repair.
Salivaomics should provide a practical diagnostic platform for translating this biology, although the number of salivary biomarkers already cataloged across human diseases reflects the scale of the research opportunity rather than present clinical readiness; each candidate panel still requires independent analytical validation, clinical validation, and demonstrated interpretability before diagnostic deployment. With that caveat, saliva may in time provide an accessible, repeatable, noninvasive window into microbial, inflammatory, metabolic, oncologic, and neurodegenerative risk. When combined with validated microbiome testing, airway evaluation, maternal and child prevention strategies, probiotics, prebiotics, polyols, remineralization chemistry, and antimicrobial stewardship, salivaomics can support a more preventive and biologically integrated model of dental practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L.C.; methodology, M.L.C., J.P. and P.R.R.; investigation, M.L.C., J.P. and P.R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.C.; writing—review and editing, M.L.C., J.P., P.R.R. and G.F.; visualization, M.L.C.; supervision, M.L.C. and P.R.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. This article is a narrative review and does not report new human or animal subject research.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this review. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank colleagues in dentistry, microbiology, pediatric health, sleep medicine, and oral–systemic health education for discussions that helped shape the clinical questions addressed in this review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dewhirst, F.E.; Chen, T.; Izard, J.; Paster, B.J.; Tanner, A.C.R.; Yu, W.-H.; Lakshmanan, A.; Wade, W.G. The human oral microbiome. J. Bacteriol. 2010, 192, 5002–5017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Aas, J.A.; Paster, B.J.; Stokes, L.N.; Olsen, I.; Dewhirst, F.E. Defining the normal bacterial flora of the oral cavity. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005, 43, 5721–5732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  3. The Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2012, 486, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  4. He, X.; McLean, J.S.; Edlund, A.; McLean, J.S.; He, X. The oral microbiome: Diversity, biogeography and human health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2024, 22, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Kilian, M.; Chapple, I.L.C.; Hannig, M.; Marsh, P.D.; Meuric, V.; Pedersen, A.M.L.; Tonetti, M.S.; Wade, W.G.; Zaura, E. The oral microbiome—An update for oral healthcare professionals. Br. Dent. J. 2016, 221, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Mark Welch, J.L.; Rossetti, B.J.; Rieken, C.W.; Dewhirst, F.E.; Borisy, G.G. Biogeography of a human oral microbiome at the micron scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, E791–E800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  7. Proctor, D.M.; Fukuyama, J.A.; Loomer, P.M.; Armitage, G.C.; Lee, S.A.; Davis, N.M.; Ryder, M.I.; Holmes, S.P.; Relman, D.A. A spatial gradient of bacterial diversity in the human oral cavity shaped by salivary flow. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Cannon, M.; Ferrer, G.; Tesch, M.; Schipma, M. Whole-genome deep sequencing of the healthy adult nasal microbiome. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  9. Segata, N.; Haake, S.K.; Mannon, P.; Lemon, K.P.; Waldron, L.; Gevers, D.; Huttenhower, C.; Izard, J. Composition of the adult digestive tract bacterial microbiome based on seven mouth surfaces, tonsils, throat and stool samples. Genome Biol. 2012, 13, R42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Wade, W.G. The oral microbiome in health and disease. Pharmacol. Res. 2013, 69, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  11. Hajishengallis, G.; Lamont, R.J. Beyond the red complex and into more complexity: The polymicrobial synergy and dysbiosis model of periodontal disease etiology. Mol. Oral Microbiol. 2012, 27, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Hajishengallis, G. Periodontitis: From microbial immune subversion to systemic inflammation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2015, 15, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  13. Socransky, S.S.; Haffajee, A.D.; Cugini, M.A.; Smith, C.; Kent, R.L. Microbial complexes in subgingival plaque. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1998, 25, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Kinane, D.F.; Stathopoulou, P.G.; Papapanou, P.N. Periodontal diseases. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2017, 3, 17038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Lamont, R.J.; Koo, H.; Hajishengallis, G. The oral microbiota: Dynamic communities and host interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 745–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  16. Lamont, R.J.; Hajishengallis, G. Polymicrobial synergy and dysbiosis in inflammatory disease. Trends Mol. Med. 2015, 21, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  17. Man, W.H.; de Steenhuijsen Piters, W.A.A.; Bogaert, D. The microbiota of the respiratory tract: Gatekeeper to respiratory health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Bassis, C.M.; Erb-Downward, J.R.; Dickson, R.J.; Freeman, C.M.; Schmidt, T.M.; Young, V.B.; Beck, J.M.; Curtis, J.L.; Huffnagle, G.B. Analysis of the upper respiratory tract microbiotas as the source of the lung and gastric microbiotas in healthy individuals. mBio 2015, 6, e00037-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  19. Kumpitsch, C.; Koskinen, K.; Schöpf, V.; Moissl-Eichinger, C. The microbiome of the human upper respiratory tract in health and disease. BMC Biol. 2019, 17, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  20. Nakajima, M.; Arimatsu, K.; Kato, T.; Matsuda, Y.; Minagawa, T.; Takahashi, N.; Ohno, H.; Yamazaki, K. Oral administration of P. gingivalis induces dysbiosis of gut microbiota and impaired barrier function leading to dissemination of enterobacteria to the liver. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Olsen, I.; Yamazaki, K. Can oral bacteria affect the microbiome of the gut? J. Oral Microbiol. 2019, 11, 1586422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Kitamoto, S.; Nagao-Kitamoto, H.; Jiao, Y.; Gillilland, M.G.; Hayashi, A.; Imai, J.; Sugihara, K.; Miyoshi, M.; Brazil, J.C.; Kuffa, P.; et al. The intermucosal connection between the mouth and gut in commensal pathobiont-driven colitis. Cell 2020, 182, 447–462.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. Kuraji, R.; Sekino, S.; Kapila, Y.; Numabe, Y. Periodontal disease-related nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: An emerging concept of oral-liver axis. Periodontol. 2000 2021, 87, 204–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Chapple, I.L.C.; Genco, R.; Working Group 2 of Joint EFP/AAP Workshop. Diabetes and periodontal diseases: Consensus report of the Joint EFP/AAP Workshop on Periodontitis and Systemic Diseases. J. Periodontol. 2013, 84, S106–S112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  25. Sanz, M.; Ceriello, A.; Buysschaert, M.; Chapple, I.; Demmer, R.T.; Graziani, F.; Herrera, D.; Jepsen, S.; Lione, L.; Madianos, P.; et al. Scientific evidence on the links between periodontal diseases and diabetes: Consensus report and guidelines. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018, 45, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Tonetti, M.S.; Van Dyke, T.E.; Working Group 1 of the Joint EFP/AAP Workshop. Periodontitis and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Consensus report of the Joint EFP/AAPWorkshop on Periodontitis and Systemic Diseases. J. Periodontol. 2013, 84, S24–S29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Lockhart, P.B.; Bolger, A.F.; Papapanou, P.N.; Osinbowale, O.; Trevisan, M.; Levison, M.E.; Taubert, K.A.; Newburger, J.W.; Gornik, H.L.; Gewitz, M.H.; et al. Periodontal disease and atherosclerotic vascular disease: Does the evidence support an independent association? Circulation 2012, 125, 2520–2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Haraszthy, V.I.; Zambon, J.J.; Trevisan, M.; Zeid, M.; Genco, R.J. Identification of periodontal pathogens in atheromatous plaques. J. Periodontol. 2000, 71, 1554–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  29. Williamson, D.A.; Ritchie, S.; Keren, B.; Harrington, M.; Thomas, M.G.; Upton, A.; Lennon, D.; Leversha, A. Persistence, discordance and diversity of Staphylococcus aureus nasal and oropharyngeal colonization in school-aged children. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2016, 35, 744–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  30. Darveau, R.P. Periodontitis: A polymicrobial disruption of host homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  31. Marsh, P.D. Dental plaque as a biofilm and a microbial community: Implications for health and disease. BMC Oral Health 2006, 6, S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  32. Bowen, W.H.; Burne, R.A.; Wu, H.; Koo, H. Oral biofilms: Pathogens, matrix, and polymicrobial interactions in microenvironments. Trends Microbiol. 2018, 26, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. Takahashi, N.; Nyvad, B. The role of bacteria in the caries process: Ecological perspectives. J. Dent. Res. 2011, 90, 294–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Marcotte, H.; Lavoie, M.C. Oral microbial ecology and the role of salivary immunoglobulin A. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1998, 62, 71–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Dawes, C.; Pedersen, A.M.L.; Villa, A.; Ekström, J.; Proctor, G.B.; Vissink, A.; Aframian, D.; McGowan, R.; Aliko, A.; Narayana, N.; et al. The functions of human saliva: A review. Arch. Oral Biol. 2015, 60, 863–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Takayasu, L.; Suda, W.; Takanashi, K.; Iioka, E.; Kurokawa, R.; Shindo, C.; Hattori, Y.; Yamashita, N.; Nishijima, S.; Oshima, K.; et al. Circadian oscillations of microbial and functional composition in the human salivary microbiome. DNA Res. 2017, 24, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  37. Teo, S.M.; Mok, D.; Pham, K.; Kusel, M.; Serralha, M.; Troy, N.; Holt, B.J.; Hales, B.J.; Walker, M.L.; Hollams, E.; et al. The infant nasopharyngeal microbiome impacts severity of lower respiratory infection and risk of asthma development. Cell Host Microbe 2015, 17, 704–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  38. Aagaard, K.; Ma, J.; Antony, K.M.; Ganu, R.; Petrosino, J.; Versalovic, J. The placenta harbors a unique microbiome. Sci. Transl. Med. 2014, 6, 237ra65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  39. de Goffau, M.C.; Lager, S.; Sovio, U.; Gaccioli, F.; Cook, E.; Peacock, S.J.; Parkhill, J.; Charnock-Jones, D.S.; Smith, G.C.S. Human placenta has no microbiome but can contain potential pathogens. Nature 2019, 572, 329–334, Correction in Nature 2019, 574, E15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1628-y. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  40. Han, Y.W.; Redline, R.W.; Li, M.; Yin, L.; Hill, G.B.; McCormick, T.S. Fusobacterium nucleatum induces premature and term stillbirths in pregnant mice: Implication of oral bacteria in preterm birth. Infect. Immun. 2004, 72, 2272–2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Fardini, Y.; Chung, P.; Dumm, R.; Joshi, N.; Han, Y.W. Transmission of diverse oral bacteria to murine placenta: Evidence for the oral microbiome as a source of intrauterine infection. Infect. Immun. 2010, 78, 1789–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  42. Vander Haar, E.L.; So, J.; Gyamfi-Bannerman, C.; Han, Y.W. Fusobacterium nucleatum and adverse pregnancy outcomes: Epidemiological and mechanistic evidence. Anaerobe 2018, 50, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  43. Kaisanlahti, A.; Turunen, J.; Byts, N.; Samoylenko, A.; Bart, G.; Virtanen, N.; Tejesvi, M.V.; Zhyvolozhnyi, A.; Sarfraz, S.; Kumpula, S.; et al. Maternal microbiota communicates with the fetus through microbiota-derived extracellular vesicles. Microbiome 2023, 11, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Russo, M.; Calevo, M.G.; D’Alessandro, G.; Tantari, M.; Migliorati, M.; Piccardo, I.; Perucchin, P.P.; Arioni, C. Influence of maternal oral microbiome on newborn oral microbiome in healthy pregnancies. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2023, 49, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Lundberg, J.O.; Weitzberg, E.; Gladwin, M.T. The nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide pathway in physiology and therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2008, 7, 156–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. Kapil, V.; Haydar, S.M.; Pearl, V.; Lundberg, J.O.; Weitzberg, E.; Ahluwalia, A. Physiological role for nitrate-reducing oral bacteria in blood pressure control. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2013, 55, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  47. Bondonno, C.P.; Liu, A.H.; Croft, K.D. Short-Term Effects of a High Nitrate Diet on Nitrate Metabolism in Healthy Individuals. Nutrients 2015, 7, 1906–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  48. Joshipura, K.J.; Muñoz-Torres, F.J.; Morou-Bermudez, E.; Patel, R.P. Over-the-counter mouthwash use and risk of pre-diabetes/diabetes. Nitric Oxide 2017, 71, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  49. Bescos, R.; Ashworth, A.; Cutler, C.; Brookes, Z.L.; Belfield, L.; Rodiles, A.; Casas-Agustench, P.; Farnham, G.; Liddle, L.; Burleigh, M.; et al. Effects of chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral microbiome. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 5254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. Li, J.L.; Gao, J.; Ma, Y.M.; Li, W.; Chen, X.C.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X. Alterations of the salivary microbiome in obstructive sleep apnea and their association with periodontitis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2025, 15, 1642766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  51. Carra, M.C.; Cistulli, P.A. Exploring the links between periodontal diseases and obstructive sleep apnoea: An overview for clinicians. Aust. Dent. J. 2024, 69, S1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  52. Bianchi, G.; de’Angelis, N.; Gavriilidis, P.; Sobhani, I.; de’Angelis, G.L.; Carra, M.C. Oral microbiota in obstructive sleep apnea patients: A systematic review. Sleep Breath. 2023, 27, 1203–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  53. Morrison, A.G.; Sarkar, S.; Umar, S.; Lee, S.T.M.; Thomas, S.M. The contribution of the human oral microbiome to oral disease: A review. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  54. Loesche, W.J. Role of Streptococcus mutans in human dental decay. Microbiol. Rev. 1986, 50, 353–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Banas, J.A. Virulence properties of Streptococcus mutans. Front. Biosci. 2004, 9, 1267–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  56. Koo, H.; Falsetta, M.L.; Klein, M.I. The exopolysaccharide matrix: A virulence determinant of cariogenic biofilm. J. Dent. Res. 2013, 92, 1065–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Ghannoum, M.A.; Jurevic, R.J.; Mukherjee, P.K.; Cui, F.; Sikaroodi, M.; Naqvi, A.; Gillevet, P.M. Characterization of the oral fungal microbiome in healthy individuals. PLoS Pathog. 2010, 6, e1000713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  58. Krom, B.P.; Kidwai, S.; Ten Cate, J.M. Candida and other fungal species: Forgotten players of healthy oral microbiota. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 445–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  59. Diaz, P.I.; Xie, Z.; Sobue, T.; Thompson, A.; Biyikoglu, B.; Ricker, A.; Ikonomou, L.; Dongari-Bagtzoglou, A. Synergistic interaction between Candida albicans and commensal oral streptococci in a novel in vitro mucosal model. Infect. Immun. 2012, 80, 620–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  60. Koo, H.; Andes, D.R.; Krysan, D.J. Candida-streptococcal interactions in biofilm-associated oral diseases. PLoS Pathog. 2018, 14, e1007342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  61. Mukherjee, P.K.; Chandra, J.; Retuerto, M.; Sikaroodi, M.; E Brown, R.; Jurevic, R.; A Salata, R.; Lederman, M.M.; Gillevet, P.M.; A Ghannoum, M. Oral mycobiome analysis of HIV-infected patients: Identification of Pichia as an antagonist of opportunistic fungi. PLoS Pathog. 2014, 10, e1003996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  62. Abeles, S.R.; Robles-Sikisaka, R.; Ly, M.; Lum, A.G.; Salzman, J.; Boehm, T.K.; Pride, D.T. Human oral viruses are personal, persistent and gender-consistent. ISME J. 2014, 8, 1753–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  63. Ly, M.; Abeles, S.R.; Boehm, T.K.; Robles-Sikisaka, R.; Naidu, M.; Santiago-Rodriguez, T.; Pride, D.T. Altered oral viral ecology in association with periodontal disease. mBio 2014, 5, e01133-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  64. Slots, J. Herpesviral-bacterial synergy in the pathogenesis of human periodontitis. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2007, 20, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  65. Gillison, M.L.; Chaturvedi, A.K.; Anderson, W.F.; Fakhry, C. Epidemiology of human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 3235–3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  66. Pride, D.T.; Salzman, J.; Haynes, M.; Rohwer, F.; Davis-Long, C.; A White, R.; Loomer, P.; Armitage, G.C.; A Relman, D. Evidence of a robust resident bacteriophage population revealed through analysis of the human salivary virome. ISME J. 2012, 6, 915–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  67. Edlund, A.; Santiago-Rodriguez, T.M.; Boehm, T.K.; Pride, D.T. Bacteriophage and their potential roles in the human oral cavity. J. Oral Microbiol. 2015, 7, 27423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  68. Santiago-Rodriguez, T.M.; Naidu, M.; Abeles, S.R.; Boehm, T.K.; Ly, M.; Pride, D.T. Transcriptome analysis of bacteriophage communities in periodontal health and disease. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  69. Nibali, L.; Henderson, B.; Sadiq, S.T.; Donos, N. Genetic dysbiosis: The role of microbial insults in chronic inflammatory diseases. J. Oral Microbiol. 2014, 6, 22962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  70. Van Dyke, T.E.; Sima, C. Understanding resolution of inflammation in periodontal diseases: Is chronic inflammatory periodontitis a failure to resolve? Periodontol. 2000 2020, 82, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  71. Pan, W.; Wang, Q.; Chen, Q. The cytokine network involved in the host immune response to periodontitis. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2019, 11, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  72. Cecoro, G.; Annunziata, M.; Iuorio, M.T.; Nastri, L.; Guida, L. Periodontitis, low-grade inflammation and systemic health: A scoping review. Medicina 2020, 56, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  73. Peres, M.A.; Macpherson, L.M.D.; Weyant, R.J.; Daly, B.; Venturelli, R.; Mathur, M.R.; Listl, S.; Celeste, R.K.; Guarnizo-Herreño, C.C.; Kearns, C.; et al. Oral diseases: A global public health challenge. Lancet 2019, 394, 249–260, Erratum in Lancet 2019, 394, 1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32079-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  74. Watt, R.G.; Daly, B.; Allison, P.; Macpherson, L.M.D.; Venturelli, R.; Listl, S.; Weyant, R.J.; Mathur, M.R.; Guarnizo-Herreño, C.C.; Celeste, R.K.; et al. Ending the neglect of global oral health: Time for radical action. Lancet 2019, 394, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  75. World Health Organization. Global Oral Health Status Report: Towards Universal Health Coverage for Oral Health by 2030; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  76. Liu, F.; Zhu, B.; An, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Xiong, P.; Li, X.; Mi, Y.; He, T.; Chen, F.; Wu, B. Gingipain from Porphyromonas gingivalis causes insulin resistance by degrading insulin receptors through direct proteolytic effects. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2024, 16, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  77. Genco, R.J.; Borgnakke, W.S. Risk factors for periodontal disease. Periodontol. 2000 2013, 62, 59–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  78. Beck, J.D.; Garcia, R.; Heiss, G.; Vokonas, P.S.; Offenbacher, S. Periodontal disease and cardiovascular disease. J. Periodontol. 1996, 67, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  79. Paraskevas, S.; Huizinga, J.D.; Loos, B.G. A systematic review and meta-analyses on C-reactive protein in relation to periodontitis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2008, 35, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  80. Lundberg, J.O.; Farkas-Szallasi, T.; Weitzberg, E.; Rinder, J.; Lidholm, J.; Änggåard, A.; Hökfelt, T.; Lundberg, J.; Alving, K. High nitric oxide production in human paranasal sinuses. Nat. Med. 1995, 1, 370–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  81. Guo, F.H.; Uetani, K.; Haque, S.J.; Williams, B.R.; Dweik, R.A.; Thunnissen, F.B.; Calhoun, W.; Erzurum, S.C. Interferon gamma and interleukin 4 stimulate prolonged expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase in human airway epithelium through synthesis of soluble mediators. J. Clin. Investig. 1997, 100, 829–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  82. Ramakrishnan, V.R.; Hauser, L.J.; Frank, D.N. Rhinology. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016, 24, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  83. Liao, Y.; Wu, Y.-X.; Tang, M.; Chen, Y.-W.; Xie, J.-R.; Du, Y.; Wang, T.-M.; He, Y.-Q.; Xue, W.-Q.; Zheng, X.-H.; et al. Microbes translocation from oral cavity to nasopharyngeal carcinoma in patients. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  84. Zheng, Y.; Fang, Z.; Xue, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, J.; Gao, R.; Yao, S.; Ye, Y.; Wang, S.; Lin, C.; et al. Specific gut microbiome signature predicts the early-stage lung cancer. Gut Microbes 2021, 13, 1030–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  85. Ogrendik, M. Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease caused by periodontal pathogens. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2013, 6, 383–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  86. Dominy, S.S.; Lynch, C.; Ermini, F.; Benedyk, M.; Marczyk, A.; Konradi, A.; Nguyen, M.; Haditsch, U.; Raha, D.; Griffin, C.; et al. Porphyromonas gingivalis in Alzheimer’s disease brains: Evidence for disease causation and treatment with small-molecule inhibitors. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaau3333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  87. Cao, D.; Yang, J.; He, Y.; Zheng, X.; Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; Tu, Y. Altered oral microbiome composition in mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Oral Microbiol. 2025, 17, 2541828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  88. Fisher, M.A.; Taylor, G.W.; Shelton, B.J.; Jamerson, K.A.; Rahman, M.; Ojo, A.O.; Sehgal, A.R. Periodontal disease and other nontraditional risk factors for CKD. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2008, 51, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  89. Cannon, M.; Peldyak, J. Pediatric oral systemic health: From fetus to adolescence. Interv. Pediatr. Dent. Open Access J. 2019, 3, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Offenbacher, S.; Katz, V.; Fertik, G.; Collins, J.; Boyd, D.; Maynor, G.; McKaig, R.; Beck, J. Periodontal infection as a possible risk factor for preterm low birth weight. J. Periodontol. 1996, 67, 1103–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  91. Han, Y.W. Oral health and adverse pregnancy outcomes—What’s next? J. Dent. Res. 2011, 90, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  92. Barak, S.; Oettinger-Barak, O.; Oettinger, M.; Machtei, E.E.; Peled, M.; Ohel, G. Common oral manifestations during pregnancy: A review. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2003, 58, 624–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  93. Valentine, G.C.; Antony, K.M.; Sangi-Haghpeykar, H.; Wood, A.C.; Chirwa, R.; Petro, S.; Dumba, M.; Nanthuru, D.; Shope, C.; Mlotha-Namarika, J.; et al. A cluster randomized trial of xylitol chewing gum for prevention of preterm birth: The PPaX trial. Med 2025, 6, 100539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  94. Söderling, E.; Isokangas, P.; Pienihäkkinen, K.; Tenovuo, J. Influence of maternal xylitol consumption on acquisition of mutans streptococci by infants. J. Dent. Res. 2000, 79, 882–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  95. Isokangas, P.; Söderling, E.; Pienihäkkinen, K.; Alanen, P. Occurrence of dental decay in children after maternal consumption of xylitol chewing gum, a follow-up from 0 to 5 years of age. J. Dent. Res. 2000, 79, 1885–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  96. Söderling, E.; Isokangas, P.; Pienihäkkinen, K.; Tenovuo, J.; Alanen, P. Influence of maternal xylitol consumption on mother-child transmission of mutans streptococci: 6-year follow-up. Caries Res. 2001, 35, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  97. Nejman, D.; Livyatan, I.; Fuks, G.; Gavert, N.; Zwang, Y.; Geller, L.T.; Rotter-Maskowitz, A.; Weiser, R.; Mallel, G.; Gigi, E.; et al. The human tumor microbiome is composed of tumor type-specific intracellular bacteria. Science 2020, 368, 973–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  98. Bullman, S.; Pedamallu, C.S.; Sicinska, E.; Clancy, T.E.; Zhang, X.; Cai, D.; Neuberg, D.; Huang, K.; Guevara, F.; Nelson, T.; et al. Analysis of Fusobacterium persistence and antibiotic response in colorectal cancer. Science 2017, 358, 1443–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  99. Zepeda-Rivera, M.; Minot, S.S.; Bouzek, H.; Wu, H.; Blanco-Míguez, A.; Manghi, P.; Jones, D.S.; LaCourse, K.D.; Wu, Y.; McMahon, E.F.; et al. A distinct Fusobacterium nucleatum clade dominates the colorectal cancer niche. Nature 2024, 628, 424–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  100. Kostic, A.D.; Chun, E.; Robertson, L.; Glickman, J.N.; Gallini, C.A.; Michaud, M.; Clancy, T.E.; Chung, D.C.; Lochhead, P.; Hold, G.L.; et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe 2013, 14, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  101. Rubinstein, M.R.; Wang, X.; Liu, W.; Hao, Y.; Cai, G.; Han, Y.W. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/beta-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin. Cell Host Microbe 2013, 14, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  102. Gur, C.; Ibrahim, Y.; Isaacson, B.; Yamin, R.; Abed, J.; Gamliel, M.; Enk, J.; Bar-On, Y.; Stanietsky-Kaynan, N.; Coppenhagen-Glazer, S.; et al. Binding of the Fap2 protein of Fusobacterium nucleatum to human inhibitory receptor TIGIT protects tumors from immune cell attack. Immunity 2015, 42, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  103. Pushalkar, S.; Hundeyin, M.; Daley, D.; Zambirinis, C.P.; Kurz, E.; Mishra, A.; Mohan, N.; Aykut, B.; Usyk, M.; Torres, L.E.; et al. The pancreatic cancer microbiome promotes oncogenesis by induction of innate and adaptive immune suppression. Cancer Discov. 2018, 8, 403–416, Correction in Cancer Discov. 2020, 10, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  104. Sepich-Poore, G.D.; McDonald, D.; Kopylova, E.; Guccione, C.; Zhu, Q.; Austin, G.; Carpenter, C.; Fraraccio, S.; Wandro, S.; Kosciolek, T.; et al. Robustness of cancer microbiome signals over a broad range of methodological variation. Oncogene 2024, 43, 1127–1148, Correction in Oncogene 2024, 43, 1579. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-024-03018-z. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  105. Peters, B.A.; Wu, J.; Pei, Z.; Yang, L.; Purdue, M.P.; Freedman, N.D.; Jacobs, E.J.; Gapstur, S.M.; Hayes, R.B.; Ahn, J. Oral microbiome composition reflects prospective risk for esophageal cancers. Cancer Res. 2017, 77, 6777–6787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  106. Arora, A.; Kaur, D.; Patiyal, S.; Kaur, D.; Tomer, R.; Raghava, G.P.S. SalivaDB—A comprehensive database for salivary biomarkers in humans. Database 2023, 2023, baad002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  107. Papale, F.; Santonocito, S.; Polizzi, A.; Lo Giudice, A.; Capodiferro, S.; Favia, G.; Isola, G. The New Era of Salivaomics in Dentistry: Frontiers and Facts in the Early Diagnosis and Prevention of Oral Diseases and Cancer. Metabolites 2022, 12, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  108. Nonaka, T.; Wong, D.T.W. Saliva diagnostics. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2022, 15, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  109. Zhang, C.Z.; Cheng, X.Q.; Li, J.Y.; Zhang, P.; Yi, P.; Xu, X.; Zhou, X.-D. Saliva in the diagnosis of diseases. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2016, 8, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  110. Wong, D.T.W. Salivaomics. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2012, 143, 19S–24S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  111. Hu, S.; Loo, J.A.; Wong, D.T. Human saliva proteome analysis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2007, 1098, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  112. Li, Y.; St. John, M.A.R.; Wong, D.T.; Zhou, X.; Kim, Y.; Sinha, U.; Jordan, R.C.K.; Eisele, D.; Abemayor, E.; Elashoff, D.; et al. Salivary transcriptome diagnostics for oral cancer detection. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004, 10, 8442–8450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  113. Lau, W.W.; Hardt, M.; Zhang, Y.H.; Freire, M.; Ruhl, S. The Human Salivary Proteome Wiki: A community-driven research platform. J. Dent. Res. 2021, 100, 1510–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  114. Giannobile, W.V.; McDevitt, J.T.; Niedbala, R.S.; Malamud, D. Translational and clinical applications of salivary diagnostics. Adv. Dent. Res. 2011, 23, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  115. Hegde, M.N.; Attavar, S.H.; Shetty, N.; Hegde, N.D.; Hegde, N.N. Saliva as a biomarker for dental caries: A systematic review. J. Conserv. Dent. 2019, 22, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  116. Laleman, I.; Teughels, W. Probiotics in the dental practice: A review. Quintessence Int. 2015, 46, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  117. Teughels, W.; Durukan, A.; Ozcelik, O.; Pauwels, M.; Quirynen, M.; Haytac, M.C. Clinical and microbiological effects of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotics in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A randomized placebo-controlled study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2013, 40, 1025–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  118. Martin-Cabezas, R.; Davideau, J.-L.; Tenenbaum, H.; Huck, O. Clinical efficacy of probiotics as an adjunctive therapy to non-surgical periodontal treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 520–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  119. Gruner, D.; Paris, S.; Schwendicke, F. Probiotics for managing caries and periodontitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2016, 48, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  120. Twetman, S. Prevention of dental caries as a non-communicable disease. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2018, 126, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  121. Baddouri, L.; Hannig, M. Probiotics as an adjunctive therapy in periodontitis treatment—Reality or illusion? A clinical perspective. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 2024, 10, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  122. Rautava, S.; Kalliomäki, M.; Isolauri, E. Probiotics during pregnancy and breast-feeding might confer immunomodulatory protection against atopic disease in the infant. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2002, 109, 119–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  123. Dugoua, J.J.; Machado, M.; Zhu, X.; Chen, X.; Koren, G.; Einarson, T.R. Probiotic safety in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2009, 31, 542–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  124. Andersson, C.K.; Weitoft, M.; Rydell-Törmänen, K.; Bjermer, L.; Westergren-Thorsson, G.; Erjefält, J.S. Uncontrolled asthmatics have increased FceRI+ and TGF-β–positive MCTC mast cells and collagen VI in the alveolar parenchyma. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2018, 48, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  125. Babadi, M.; Khorshidi, A.; Aghadavood, E.; Samimi, M.; Kavossian, E.; Bahmani, F.; Mafi, A.; Shafabakhsh, R.; Satari, M.; Asemi, Z. The effects of probiotic supplementation on genetic and metabolic profiles in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 1227–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  126. Hamilos, D.L. Chronic rhinosinusitis: Epidemiology and medical management. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2011, 128, 693–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  127. De Boeck, I.; van den Broek, M.F.L.; Allonsius, C.N.; Spacova, I.; Wittouck, S.; Martens, K.; Wuyts, S.; Cauwenberghs, E.; Jokicevic, K.; Vandenheuvel, D.; et al. Lactobacilli Have a Niche in the Human Nose. Cell Rep. 2020, 31, 107674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  128. Stokholm, J.; Blaser, M.J.; Thorsen, J.; Rasmussen, M.A.; Waage, J.; Vinding, R.K.; Schoos, A.-M.M.; Kunøe, A.; Fink, N.R.; Chawes, B.L.; et al. Maturation of the gut microbiome and risk of asthma in childhood. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 141, Correction in Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3197. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03150-x. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  129. Lou, L.; Liang, T.; Lv, M. Probiotics in the ICU: A scoping review of evidence for infection prevention. J. Transl. Med. 2026, 24, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  130. Zhang, W.X.; Shi, L.B.; Zhou, M.S.; Wu, J.; Shi, H.Y. Efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. J. Med. Microbiol. 2023, 72, 001758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  131. Xie, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Jiang, F.; Cai, X. Meta-analytical insight on probiotic metabolites and inflammatory markers in diabetes. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2025, 15, 1677671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  132. Persaud, N.; Azarpazhooh, A.; Keown-Stoneman, C.; Birken, C.S.; Isaranuwatchai, W.; Maguire, J.L.; Mamdani, M.; Allen, C.; Mason, D.; Kowal, C.; et al. Xylitol for the prevention of acute otitis media episodes in children aged 1–5 years: A randomised controlled trial. Arch. Dis. Child. 2024, 109, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  133. Mäkinen, K.K. Gastrointestinal disturbances associated with the consumption of sugar alcohols with special consideration of xylitol. Int. J. Dent. 2016, 2016, 5967907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  134. Wölnerhanssen, B.K.; Meyer-Gerspach, A.C.; Beglinger, C.; Islam, M.S. Metabolic effects of the natural sweeteners xylitol and erythritol: A comprehensive review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 1986–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  135. Bordier, V.; Teysseire, F.; Senner, F.; Schlotterbeck, G.; Drewe, J.; Beglinger, C.; Wölnerhanssen, B.K.; Meyer-Gerspach, A.C. Absorption and metabolism of the natural sweeteners erythritol and xylitol in humans: A dose-ranging study. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 9867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  136. Murphy, L.A.; Coleman, A.E. Xylitol toxicosis in dogs. Vet. Clin. North Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2012, 42, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  137. Kontiokari, T.; Svanberg, M.; Mattila, P.; Leinonen, M.; Uhari, M. Quantitative analysis of the effect of xylitol on pneumococcal nasal colonisation in rats. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1999, 178, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Brown, C.L.; Graham, S.M.; Cable, B.B.; Ozer, E.A.; Taft, P.J.; Zabner, J. Xylitol enhances bacterial killing in the rabbit maxillary sinus. Laryngoscope 2004, 114, 2021–2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  139. Zabner, J.; Seiler, M.P.; Launspach, J.L.; Karp, P.H.; Kearney, W.R.; Look, D.C.; Smith, J.J.; Welsh, M.J. The osmolyte xylitol reduces the salt concentration of airway surface liquid and may enhance bacterial killing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 11614–11619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  140. Weissman, J.D.; Fernandez, F.; Hwang, P.H. Xylitol nasal irrigation in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis: A pilot study. Laryngoscope 2011, 121, 2468–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  141. Rabago, D.; Kille, T.; Mundt, M.; Obasi, C. Results of a RCT assessing saline and xylitol nasal irrigation for CRS and fatigue in Gulf War illness. Laryngoscope Investig. Otolaryngol. 2020, 5, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  142. Jiang, R.S.; Chiang, Y.F.; Liang, K.L. Efficacy and Safety of Xylitol Nasal Irrigation after Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  143. Lin, L.; Tang, X.; Wei, J.; Dai, F.; Sun, G. Xylitol nasal irrigation in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2017, 38, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  144. Iqbal, S.; DeConde, A.; Watson, D. Does Xylitol Have Additional Benefit Over Saline for Nasal Irrigation in Chronic Rhinosinusitis? Laryngoscope 2026. advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  145. Kang, Y.J.; Stybayeva, G.; Hwang, S.H. Role of Xylitol Nasal Irrigation in the Management of Chronic Sinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2026, 51, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  146. Margulis, I.; Cohen-Kerem, R.; Stein, N.; Roitman, A.; Cohen-Vaizer, M.; Fridman, E.; Gordin, A. Xylitol nasal spray for prevention of recurrent acute otitis media in children: A prospective two-center cohort study. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2024, 176, 111818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  147. Tian, Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, M.; Li, X.; Lu, F.; Ma, S.; Wang, W.; Wang, J.; Tang, J.; Wu, J.; et al. Evaluation of inhalation toxicology after a 90-day xylitol aerosol exposure in Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2022, 446, 116045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  148. Sakallioğlu, Ö.; Güvenç, I.A.; Cingi, C. Xylitol and its usage in ENT practice. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2014, 128, 580–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  149. Zhu, J.X.; Huang, G.J. The microbiota-metabolite-immune axis in the olfactory cleft microenvironment: Mechanisms and therapeutic implications for dysbiosis-driven olfactory dysfunction in chronic rhinosinusitis. Front. Immunol. 2026, 17, 1841979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  150. Manarelli, M.M.; Delbem, A.C.B.; Lima, T.M.T.; Castilho, F.C.N.; Sassaki, K.T.; Delbem, A.C.B. In vitro remineralizing effect of fluoride varnishes containing sodium trimetaphosphate. Caries Res. 2014, 48, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  151. Takeshita, E.M.; Danelon, M.; Castro, L.P.; Sassaki, K.T.; Delbem, A.C.B.; ten Cate, J.M. Remineralizing potential of a low-fluoride dentifrice containing sodium trimetaphosphate: An in situ study. Caries Res. 2016, 50, 571–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  152. Garcia, L.S.G.; Delbem, A.C.B.; Pessan, J.P.; Silva, M.D.P.; Souza Neto, F.N.; Gorup, L.F.; de Camargo, E.R.; Danelon, M. Anticaries effect of toothpaste with nano-sized sodium hexametaphosphate. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 3535–3542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  153. Di Spirito, F.; Folliero, V.; Di Palo, M.P.; De Benedetto, G.; Aulisio, L.; Martina, S.; Rinaldi, L.; Franci, G. Micro- and nanoplastics and the oral cavity: Implications for oral and systemic health, dental practice, and the environment—A narrative review. J. Funct. Biomater. 2025, 16, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  154. Marfella, R.; Prattichizzo, F.; Sardu, C.; Fulgenzi, G.; Graciotti, L.; Spadoni, T.; D’oNofrio, N.; Scisciola, L.; La Grotta, R.; Frigé, C.; et al. Microplastics and nanoplastics in atheromas and cardiovascular events. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 390, 900–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  155. Garcia, M.A.; Liu, R.; Nihart, A.; El Hayek, E.; Castillo, E.; Barrozo, E.R.; A Suter, M.; Bleske, B.; Scott, J.; Forsythe, K.; et al. Quantitation and identification of microplastics accumulation in human placental specimens using pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Toxicol. Sci. 2024, 199, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  156. Bourbia, M.; Ma, D.; Cvitkovitch, D.G.; Santerre, J.P.; Finer, Y. Cariogenic bacteria degrade dental resin composites and adhesives. J. Dent. Res. 2013, 92, 989–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  157. Delaviz, Y.; Finer, Y.; Santerre, J.P. Biodegradation of resin composites and adhesives by oral bacteria and saliva. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, 16–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  158. Francis, D.L.; Reddy, S.S.P. Microplastics in the pathogenesis of periodontal diseases: A narrative review. Ann. Glob. Health 2025, 91, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  159. Thatcher, M.O.; Tippetts, T.S.; Nelson, M.B.; Swensen, A.C.; Winden, D.R.; Hansen, M.E.; Anderson, M.C.; Johnson, I.E.; Porter, J.P.; Reynolds, P.R.; et al. Ceramides mediate cigarette smoke-induced metabolic disruption in mice. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2014, 307, E919–E927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  160. Tippetts, T.S.; Winden, D.R.; Swensen, A.C.; Nelson, M.B.; Thatcher, M.O.; Saito, R.R.; Condie, T.B.; Simmons, K.J.; Judd, A.M.; Reynolds, P.R.; et al. Cigarette smoke increases cardiomyocyte ceramide accumulation and inhibits mitochondrial respiration. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2014, 14, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  161. Cannon, M.; Peldyak, J.; Reynolds, P. Micro/Nanoplastics and Periodontitis: An Environmental Microbiology Perspective on Oral Retention and Systemic Risk. Microorganisms 2026, 14, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.