» Articles » PMID: 34932711

Streptococcus Mutans Adherence to Conventional and Self-ligating Brackets: an in Vitro Study

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2021 Dec 21
PMID 34932711
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Although self-ligating brackets presumably provide better hygiene conditions, no consensus has been reached so far.

Objective: Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate, in an in vitro experimental design, the adherence of Streptococcus mutans (SM) in self-ligating and conventional brackets of different manufacturers and ligature types.

Methods: Four commercial brands of maxillary premolar metal brackets were tested (Abzil®; Morelli®; 3M Unitek®; and GAC®). Each one was subdivided into three groups, which varied according to the type of ligature and bracket model (metallic, elastic, and self-ligating), totalizing twelve groups, composed of six brackets each. Previously sterilized brackets were initially immersed in saliva for one hour, and subsequently washed and added in a bacterial suspension, maintained in aerobiosis for 72 hours. The adhered bacteria were then separated and quantified by colony forming units (CFU/mL) counting after 48 hours of growth. The groups were compared by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn post-hoc tests (p< 0.05).

Results: Regardless of the commercial brand, self-ligating brackets had significantly less CFU/mL. However, according to comparisons performed within each commercial brand, only Abzil® self-ligating brackets had significantly lower biofilm adhesion. Among all of the self-ligating models, GAC® brackets presented the highest bacterial adhesion rate.

Conclusions: Self-ligating brackets are likely to present lower rates of biofilm adhesion. Particularly, Abzil® and GAC® self-ligating brackets are less likely to accumulate biofilm. Although such results are derived from an in vitro study, practitioners might acknowledge findings concerning bacterial adhesion as one of the relevant features to be considered during bracket selection.

Citing Articles

A novel stable biomimetic adhesive coating for functionalization of orthodontic brackets against bacterial colonization and white spot lesions.

Singer L, Karacic S, Bierbaum G, Palmer B, Kirschneck C, Bourauel C BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):23.

PMID: 39755607 PMC: 11700469. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05313-3.


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.

References
1.
Paduano S, Cioffi I, Iodice G, Rapuano A, Silva R . Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. Prog Orthod. 2009; 9(2):74-80. View

2.
Jongsma M, Pelser F, van der Mei H, Atema-Smit J, van de Belt-Gritter B, Busscher H . Biofilm formation on stainless steel and gold wires for bonded retainers in vitro and in vivo and their susceptibility to oral antimicrobials. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 17(4):1209-18. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0807-0. View

3.
van Gastel J, Quirynen M, Teughels W, Coucke W, Carels C . Influence of bracket design on microbial and periodontal parameters in vivo. J Clin Periodontol. 2007; 34(5):423-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01070.x. View

4.
Ren Y, Jongsma M, Mei L, van der Mei H, Busscher H . Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and biofilm formation--a potential public health threat?. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18(7):1711-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1240-3. View

5.
Nelson-Filho P, Olmedo L, Andrucioli M, Saraiva M, Matsumoto M, Queiroz A . Use of the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridisation technique for in vivo detection of cariogenic microorganisms on metallic brackets, with or without use of an antimicrobial agent. J Dent. 2011; 39(7):513-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.05.001. View