Comparative Analysis of Long-term Biofilm Formation on Metal and Ceramic Brackets

Overview

Journal Angle Orthod

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2011 May 6

PMID 21542722

Citations 12

Authors

Ira Dewi Lindel

Cornelius Elter

Wieland Heuer

Torsten Heidenblut

Meike Stiesch

Rainer Schwestka-Polly

Anton Phillip Demling

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that stainless steel and ceramic brackets show no differences in biofilm adhesion.

Materials And Methods: Twenty adolescents (6 boys, 14 girls) who had received fixed orthodontic therapy for 18.9 ± 3.2 months were divided into a metal and a ceramic bracket group. Thirty brackets per group were taken from central incisors, canines, and second premolars and quantitatively analyzed for biofilm coverage with the Rutherford backscattering detection method. Five micrographs were obtained per bracket with views from the buccal, mesial, distal, gingival, and occlusal aspects, resulting in a total of 300 images. Biofilm formation between groups was compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test (α = .05).

Results: Total biofilm formation was 12.5% ± 5.7% (3.3 ± 1.6 mm(2)) of the surface on metal and 5.6% ± 2.4% (1.5 ± 0.6 mm(2)) on ceramic brackets. Differences between groups were statistically significant (P < .05). A pairwise comparison of biofilm formation revealed significantly lower biofilm formation on ceramic brackets with respect to intraoral location (central incisor, canine, second premolar) and bracket surface (buccal, mesial, distal).

Conclusions: The hypothesis was rejected. The results indicate that ceramic brackets exhibit less long-term biofilm accumulation than metal brackets.

Citing Articles

Effect of the crystalline structure of ceramic orthodontic brackets on the adherence of and : An study.

Hasanzadeh Azhiri A, Tashakor A, Mirmohammadi K, Rasooli R Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2024; 21:61.

PMID: 39735230 PMC: 11676311. DOI: 10.4103/drj.drj_84_24.

Evaluation of the Demineralization Development around Different Types of Orthodontic Brackets.

Toz Ertop M, Cicek O, Erener H, Ozkalayci N, Demir Cicek B, Comert F Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(3).

PMID: 36769990 PMC: 9917947. DOI: 10.3390/ma16030984.

Fluoride varnish, ozone and octenidine reduce the incidence of white spot lesions and caries during orthodontic treatment: randomized controlled trial.

Grocholewicz K, Miklasz P, Zawislak A, Sobolewska E, Janiszewska-Olszowska J Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):13985.

PMID: 35978074 PMC: 9385708. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18107-w.

Variation in adhesion of and in saliva-derived biofilms on raw materials of orthodontic brackets.

Park S, Kim K, Cho S, Chung D, Ahn S Korean J Orthod. 2022; 52(4):278-286.

PMID: 35678009 PMC: 9314218. DOI: 10.4041/kjod21.283.

Corrosion of orthodontic brackets: qualitative and quantitative surface analysis.

Doomen R, Nedeljkovic I, Kuitert R, Kleverlaan C, Aydin B Angle Orthod. 2022; .

PMID: 35604674 PMC: 9374347. DOI: 10.2319/072321-584.1.

References

Hannig M . Transmission electron microscopy of early plaque formation on dental materials in vivo. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999; 107(1):55-64. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.1999.eos107109.x. View

Elter C, Heuer W, Demling A, Hannig M, Heidenblut T, Bach F . Supra- and subgingival biofilm formation on implant abutments with different surface characteristics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23(2):327-34. View

Alexander S . Effects of orthodontic attachments on the gingival health of permanent second molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991; 100(4):337-40. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70071-4. View

Eliades T, Eliades G, Brantley W . Microbial attachment on orthodontic appliances: I. Wettability and early pellicle formation on bracket materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108(4):351-60. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70032-3. View

Lin M, Lin S, Lee T, Huang H . Surface analysis and corrosion resistance of different stainless steel orthodontic brackets in artificial saliva. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76(2):322-9. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0322:SAACRO]2.0.CO;2. View

Demling A, Elter C, Heidenblut T, Bach F, Hahn A, Schwestka-Polly R . Reduction of biofilm on orthodontic brackets with the use of a polytetrafluoroethylene coating. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32(4):414-8. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp142. View

Ahn S, Kho H, Lee S . Roles of salivary proteins in the adherence of oral streptococci to various orthodontic brackets. J Dent Res. 2002; 81(6):411-5. DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100611. View

Ogaard B, Rolla G, Arends J . Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94(1):68-73. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90453-2. View

Lang N, Adler R, Joss A, Nyman S . Absence of bleeding on probing. An indicator of periodontal stability. J Clin Periodontol. 1990; 17(10):714-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1990.tb01059.x. View

10.

Alves de Souza R, Magnani M, Nouer D, Oliveira da Silva C, Klein M, Sallum E . Periodontal and microbiologic evaluation of 2 methods of archwire ligation: ligature wires and elastomeric rings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(4):506-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.067. View

11.

Chapman J, Eugene Roberts W, Eckert G, Kula K, Gonzalez-Cabezas C . Risk factors for incidence and severity of white spot lesions during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138(2):188-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.10.019. View

12.

Quirynen M, Bollen C . 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):1-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb01765.x. View

13.

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

14.

Paolantonio M, Pedrazzoli V, di Murro C, Di Placido G, Picciani C, Catamo G . Clinical significance of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans in young individuals during orthodontic treatment. A 3-year longitudinal study. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24(9 Pt 1):610-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1997.tb00237.x. View

15.

Quirynen M . The clinical meaning of the surface roughness and the surface free energy of intra-oral hard substrata on the microbiology of the supra- and subgingival plaque: results of in vitro and in vivo experiments. J Dent. 1994; 22 Suppl 1:S13-6. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(94)90165-1. View

16.

Heuer W, Elter C, Demling A, Neumann A, Suerbaum S, Hannig M . Analysis of early biofilm formation on oral implants in man. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34(5):377-82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01725.x. View

17.

Boyd R . Longitudinal evaluation of a system for self-monitoring plaque control effectiveness in orthodontic patients. J Clin Periodontol. 1983; 10(4):380-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1983.tb01287.x. View

18.

Matasa C . Pros and cons of the reuse of direct-bonded appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 96(1):72-6. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90232-1. View

19.

Atack N, Sandy J, Addy M . Periodontal and microbiological changes associated with the placement of orthodontic appliances. A review. J Periodontol. 1996; 67(2):78-85. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1996.67.2.78. View

20.

Naranjo A, Trivino M, Jaramillo A, Betancourth M, Botero J . Changes in the subgingival microbiota and periodontal parameters before and 3 months after bracket placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(3):275.e17-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.022. View