Quantitative Analysis of Biofilm Formation on Labial and Lingual Bracket Surfaces

Overview

Journal Angle Orthod

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2020 Jan 1

PMID 31891540

Citations 2

Authors

Sila Bilgin Yener

Omur Polat Ozsoy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the biofilm formation between labial and lingual orthodontic brackets.

Materials And Methods: Twenty patients with a mean age of 24 ± 8.8 who had received labial or lingual orthodontic treatment were enrolled in the study. Biofilm formation on 80 brackets was analyzed quantitatively with the Rutherford backscattering detection method. Five micrographs were obtained per bracket with views from the vestibule/lingual, mesial, distal, gingival, and occlusal aspects. Quantitative analysis was carried out with surface analysis software (ImageJ 1.48). Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).

Results: Total biofilm formation was 41.56% (min 29.43% to max 48.76%) on lingual brackets and 26.52% (min 21.61% to max 32.71%) on labial brackets. Differences between the two groups were found to be significant. No difference was observed in intraoral location. The biofilm accumulation was mostly located on gingival, mesial, and distal surfaces for both groups.

Conclusions: The biofilm accumulation on lingual orthodontic therapy was found to be more than labial orthodontic therapy.

Citing Articles

Periodontal Parameters in Fixed Labial and Lingual Orthodontic Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zhai M, Wang M, Li L, Liu B, Wei F Oral Health Prev Dent. 2022; 20:475-484.

PMID: 36416605 PMC: 11640700. DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.b3601703.

Improvement of polydopamine-loaded salidroside on osseointegration of titanium implants.

Yi Q, Liang P, Liang D, Cao L, Sha S, Jiang X Chin Med. 2022; 17(1):26.

PMID: 35189918 PMC: 8862395. DOI: 10.1186/s13020-022-00569-9.

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

Fujita K . Multilingual-bracket and mushroom arch wire technique. A clinical report. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82(2):120-40. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90491-2. View

Lundstrom F, KRASSE B . Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli frequency in orthodontic patients; the effect of chlorhexidine treatments. Eur J Orthod. 1987; 9(2):109-16. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/9.2.109. View

Paige S . A lingual light-wire technique. J Clin Orthod. 1982; 16(8):534-44. View

Miyawaki S, Yasuhara M, Koh Y . Discomfort caused by bonded lingual orthodontic appliances in adult patients as examined by retrospective questionnaire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 115(1):83-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70320-3. View

Lombardo L, Ortan Y, Gorgun O, Panza C, Scuzzo G, Siciliani G . Changes in the oral environment after placement of lingual and labial orthodontic appliances. Prog Orthod. 2013; 14:28. PMC: 4384913. DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-28. View

Passariello C, Gigola P . Adhesion and biofilm formation by periodontopathogenic bacteria on different commercial brackets. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2013; 14(3):199-203. View

Demling A, Heuer W, Elter C, Heidenblut T, Bach F, Schwestka-Polly R . Analysis of supra- and subgingival long-term biofilm formation on orthodontic bands. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31(2):202-6. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn090. View

van der Veen M, Attin R, Schwestka-Polly R, Wiechmann D . Caries outcomes after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances: do lingual brackets make a difference?. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010; 118(3):298-303. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00733.x. View

10.

Sinclair P, Cannito M, Goates L, Solomos L, Alexander C . Patient responses to lingual appliances. J Clin Orthod. 1986; 20(6):396-404. View

11.

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

12.

Caniklioglu C, Ozturk Y . Patient discomfort: a comparison between lingual and labial fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(1):86-91. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075<0086:PDACBL>2.0.CO;2. View

13.

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

14.

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

15.

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

16.

Ahn S, Lim B, Lee S . Prevalence of cariogenic streptococci on incisor brackets detected by polymerase chain reaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(6):736-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.036. View

17.

Auschill T, Arweiler N, Brecx M, Reich E, Sculean A, Netuschil L . The effect of dental restorative materials on dental biofilm. Eur J Oral Sci. 2002; 110(1):48-53. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.2001.101160.x. View

18.

Demling A, Demling C, Schwestka-Polly R, Stiesch M, Heuer W . Influence of lingual orthodontic therapy on microbial parameters and periodontal status in adults. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31(6):638-42. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp064. View

19.

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

20.

Gorman J, Smith R . Comparison of treatment effects with labial and lingual fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991; 99(3):202-9. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70002-E. View