Open Journal Systems

Cover Image

Evaluation of microbial attachment on different orthodontic brackets

Sudhanshu Kumar, Ravishankar Prasad, Atulya Prasad, Kunal Kumar, Gunjan Kedia, Neal Bharat Kedia

Abstract


Background: Orthodontic brackets are available as different designs and materials in the market. These brackets are prone for bacterial plaque accumulation. The amount of plaque formation and friction is greatly affected depends on type of brackets. Aim: This study was done to assess microbial attachments on different brackets. Materials and Methods: This study includes 60 patients in age range of 18–25 years with both genders and ten samples in each subgroup. Six different types of commercially available brackets were used and divided into two groups. Group I comprised brackets 3M Unitek-Gemini (Subgroup I A), dentaurum equilibrium-2 (Subgroup I B), Ormco- Mini diamond (Subgroup I C) and Group II comprised brackets Orthox (Subgroup II A), Ocean (Subgroup II B) and Desire (Subgroup II C). Brackets were bonded in a polyurethane box. The dental plaque and saliva were added in brain heart infusion medium and brackets were incubated at 37°C. Colony-forming units (CFU) was recorded in each group. Results: The adhesion of aerobic bacteria to Group I brackets was higher in Subgroup I-C (26.92), followed by Subgroup I-B (20.46) and Subgroup I-A (15.24). The adhesion of aerobic bacteria to Group II brackets was higher in Subgroup II-C (61.15), followed by Subgroup I-B (49.36) and Subgroup I-A (42.94). The adhesion of anaerobic bacteria to Group I brackets was higher in Subgroup I-C (23.15), followed by Subgroup I-B (20.84) and Subgroup I-A (18.64). The adhesion of bacteria was statistically non-significant (P > 0.05). There was significant difference in adhesion of aerobes in Group I and Group II brackets (P < 0.05). There was significant difference in adhesion of anaerobes in Group I and Group II brackets (P < 0.05). Conclusion: There was difference in aerobes and anaerobes CFU in different types of brackets. 3M Unitek-Gemini (Group IA) and Orthox (Subgroup II A) were found to be better compared to other group and they have lesser amount of aerobic and anaerobic plaque accumulation. Clinical Significance: We found that, there was difference in aerobes and anaerobes CFU in different types of brackets. Titanium and gold brackets revealed the lowest microbial adhesion, which suggest their indication for clinical use to reduce plaque accumulation to improve oral hygiene during fixed orthodontic procedure.

Keywords


Aerobes; attachment brackets; microbial; orthodontic brackets

Full Text:

Abstract PDF

References


Bollen AM, Cunha-Cruz J, Bakko DW, Huang GJ, Hujoel PP. The effects of orthodontic therapy on periodontal health: A systematic review of controlled evidence. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:413-22.

Fournier A, Payant L, Bouclin R. Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:414-7.

García-Godoy F, Hicks MJ. Maintaining the integrity of the enamel surface: The role of dental biofilm, saliva and preventive agents in enamel demineralization and remineralization. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:25-34.

Rosan B, Lamont RJ. Dental plaque formation. Microbes Infect 2000;2:1599-607.

Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra-and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:1-14.

Papaioannou W, Gizani S, Nassika M, Kontou E, Nakou M. Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to different types of brackets. Angle Orthod 2007;77:1090-5.

Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17 Suppl 2:68-81.

Pereira CA, Eskelson E, Cavalli V, Liporoni PC, Jorge AO, do Rego MA. Streptococcus mutans biofilm adhesion on composite resin surfaces after different finishing and polishing techniques. Oper Dent 2011;36:311-7.

Baka ZM, Basciftci FA, Arslan U. Effects of 2 bracket and ligation types on plaque retention: A quantitative microbiologic analysis with real-time polymerase chain reaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:260-7.

Monteiro DR, Gorup LF, Takamiya AS, Ruvollo-Filho AC, Camargo ER, Barbosa DB. The growing importance of materials that prevent microbial adhesion: Antimicrobial effect of medical devices containing silver. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009;34:103-10.

Sukontapatipark W, El-Agroudi MA, Selliseth NJ, Thunold K, Selvig KA. Bacterial colonization associated with fixed orthodontic appliances. A scanning microscopy study. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:475-84.

Anhoury P, Nathanson D, Hughes CV, Socransky S, Feres M, Chou LL. Microbial profile on metallic and ceramic bracket materials. Angle Orthod 2002;72:338-43.

Hägg U, Kaveewatcharanont P, Samaranayake YH, Samaranayake LP. The effect of fixed orthodontic appliances on the oral carriage of Candida species and Enterobacteriaceae. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:623-9.

Faltermeier A, Bürgers R, Rosentrittc M. Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to esthetic bracket materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:99-103.

Gastel J, Quirynen M, Teughels W, Pauwels M, Coucke W, Carels C. Microbial adhesion on different bracket types in vitro. Angle Orthod 2009;79:915-21.

Ahn SJ, Lee SJ, Lim BS, Nahm DS. Quantitative determination of adhesion patterns of cariogenic streptococci to various orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:815-21.

Tupinamba RA, Claro CA, Pereira CA, Nobrega CJ, Claro AP. Bacterial adhesion on conventional and self-ligating metallic brackets after surface treatment with plasma-polymerized hexamethyldisiloxane. Dental Press J Orthod 2017;22:77-85.

Sunil PC, Michael T, Raju AS, Paul RK, Mamatha J, Ebin TM. Evaluation of micro-organism in ligated metal and self-ligating brackets using scanning electron microscopy: An in vivo study. J Int Oral Health 2015;7:58-62.

Passariello C, Gigola P. Adhesion and biofilm formation by periodontopathogenic bacteria on different commercial brackets. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013;14:199-203.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
x
Message