In Vitro and in Vivo Biofilm Adhesion to Esthetic Coated Arch Wires and Its Correlation with Surface Roughness

Overview

Journal Angle Orthod

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2015 Jun 26

PMID 26111191

Citations 18

Authors

Mahasen Taha

Abeer El-Fallal

Heba Degla

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the in vitro ability of esthetic coated rectangular arch wires to retain oral biofilms and in vivo biofilm formation on these wires after 4 and 8 weeks of clinical use and to correlate the findings with the surface roughness of these wires.

Materials And Methods: Three brands of esthetic coated nickel-titanium (NiTi) arch wires were selected. Arch wires retrieved after 4 and 8 weeks of intraoral use were obtained from 30 orthodontic patients. Surface roughness (SR) was assessed with an atomic force microscope. In vitro adhesion assays were performed using Streptococcus mutans (MS), Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida albicans. The amount of bacterial adhesion was quantified using the colony-count method. Paired t-test, analysis of variance, post hoc Tukey's test, and Pearson's correlation coefficient test were used for statistical analysis at the .05 level of significance.

Results: In vitro bacterial adhesion showed significant differences between wires in terms of MS adhesion (P = .01). All wires showed significant increases in SR (P = .001 after 4 weeks and .007 after 8 weeks) and biofilm adhesion (P = .0001 after 4 weeks and .045 after 8 weeks) after intraoral exposure. A significant positive correlation (P = .001 after 4 weeks and .05 after 8 weeks) was observed between these two variables in vivo, but the correlation was not significant for in vitro bacterial adhesion.

Conclusions: SR and biofilm adhesion increased after intraoral use at all time intervals. There was a positive correlation between SR and biofilm adhesion in vivo only.

Citing Articles

Effect of implant abutment surface treatments on bacterial biofilm composition and structure.

Anitua E, Murias-Freijo A, Tierno R, Tejero R, Alkhraisat M J Oral Microbiol. 2025; 17(1):2459922.

PMID: 39916977 PMC: 11800344. DOI: 10.1080/20002297.2025.2459922.

Molecular Docking and Experimental Analysis of Essential Oil-Based Preparations on Biofilm Formation on Orthodontic Archwires.

Alexa V, Fratila A, Oancea R, Galuscan A, Balean O, Bolchis V Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 25(24.

PMID: 39769141 PMC: 11678866. DOI: 10.3390/ijms252413378.

Microbial adhesion on different types of orthodontic brackets and wires: An in vitro study.

Abutayyem H, Abdullatif Alshehhi M, Alameri M, Zafar M Saudi Dent J. 2024; 36(11):1459-1465.

PMID: 39619715 PMC: 11605721. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.09.004.

Comprehensive evaluation of the antibacterial and antibiofilm activities of NiTi orthodontic wires coated with silver nanoparticles and nanocomposites: an in vitro study.

Abdallah O, Sedky Y, Shebl H BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1345.

PMID: 39501221 PMC: 11539822. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05104-w.

A Comparative Evaluation of Surface Hardness and Nanomechanical Properties of Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Wires: An In Vitro Study.

Prathapan Santhakumari P, Varma Raja V, Kalarickal B, Thavalam Parambil M, Sebastian J, Cheeramelil J Cureus. 2024; 16(7):e64284.

PMID: 39131011 PMC: 11316674. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.64284.

References

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

Eliades T, Eliades G, Athanasiou A, Bradley T . Surface characterization of retrieved NiTi orthodontic archwires. Eur J Orthod. 2000; 22(3):317-26. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/22.3.317. 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

Postlethwaite K . Advances in fixed appliance design and use: 1. Brackets and archwires. Dent Update. 1992; 19(7):276-8, 280. View

DAnto V, Rongo R, Ametrano G, Spagnuolo G, Manzo P, Martina R . Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82(5):922-8. PMC: 8823114. DOI: 10.2319/100211-620.1. View

Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D . Mechanical properties of coated superelastic archwires in conventional and self-ligating orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(2):213-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.01.026. 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

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

Lee H, Park H, Kim K, Kwon T, Hong S . Effect of garlic on bacterial biofilm formation on orthodontic wire. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81(5):895-900. PMC: 8916176. DOI: 10.2319/121010-713.1. View

10.

Artun J, Brobakken B . Prevalence of carious white spots after orthodontic treatment with multibonded appliances. Eur J Orthod. 1986; 8(4):229-34. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/8.4.229. View

11.

Russell J . Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod. 2005; 32(2):146-63. DOI: 10.1179/146531205225021024. View

12.

Mizrahi E . Enamel demineralization following orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82(1):62-7. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90548-6. View

13.

Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D . Ex vivo surface and mechanical properties of coated orthodontic archwires. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30(6):661-7. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn057. View

14.

Lee S, Lee S, Lim B, Ahn S . Surface characteristics of orthodontic materials and their effects on adhesion of mutans streptococci. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(2):353-60. DOI: 10.2319/021308-88.1. View

15.

Bollen C, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D . The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7(3):201-11. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070302.x. View

16.

Steinberg D, Eyal S . Initial biofilm formation of Streptococcus sobrinus on various orthodontics appliances. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31(11):1041-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01350.x. View

17.

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

18.

Bourauel C, Fries T, Drescher D, Plietsch R . Surface roughness of orthodontic wires via atomic force microscopy, laser specular reflectance, and profilometry. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20(1):79-92. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.1.79. View

19.

Marques I, Araujo A, Gurgel J, Normando D . Debris, roughness and friction of stainless steel archwires following clinical use. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(3):521-7. PMC: 8985709. DOI: 10.2319/081109-457.1. View

20.

Husmann P, Bourauel C, Wessinger M, Jager A . The frictional behavior of coated guiding archwires. J Orofac Orthop. 2002; 63(3):199-211. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-002-0009-5. View