Comparative three-dimensional analysis of initial biofilm formation on three orthodontic bracket materials

Head & Face Medicine

Anton Phillip Demling²  Rainer Schwestka-Polly²  Meike Stiesch¹  Wieland Heuer¹  Sebastian Grade¹  Carolina Fuchslocher Hellemann²  Marc Philipp Dittmer³ 

[1] Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomedical Materials Science, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, Hannover 30625, Germany;Department of Orthodontics, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, Hannover 30625, Germany;Center of Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, Hannover 30625, Germany

关键词: Brackets;    Orthodontics;    Ceramic;    Stainless steel;    Gold;    CLSM;    Biofilm;   

Others  :  1177410
DOI  :  10.1186/s13005-015-0062-0

 received in 2014-11-20, accepted in 2015-02-03,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to investigate and compare early biofilm formation on biomaterials, which are being used in contemporary fixed orthodontic treatment.

Methods

This study comprised 10 healthy volunteers (5 females and 5 males) with a mean age of 27.3 +–3.7 years. Three slabs of different orthodontic materials (stainless steel, gold and ceramic) were placed in randomized order on a splint in the mandibular molar region. Splints were inserted intraorally for 48 h. Then the slabs were removed from the splints and the biofilms were stained with a two color fluorescence assay for bacterial viability (LIVE/DEAD BacLight–Bacterial Viability Kit 7012, Invitrogen, Mount Waverley, Australia). The quantitative biofilm formation was analyzed by using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).

Results

The biofilm coverage was 32.7 ± 37.7% on stainless steel surfaces, 59.5 ± 40.0% on gold surfaces and 56.8 ± 43.6% on ceramic surfaces. Statistical analysis showed significant differences in biofilm coverage between the tested materials (p=0.033). The Wilcoxon test demonstrated significantly lower biofilm coverage on steel compared to gold (p=0.011).

Biofilm height on stainless steel surfaces was 4.0 ± 7.3 μm, on gold surfaces 6.0 ± 6.6 μm and on ceramic 6.5 ± 6.0 μm. The Friedman test revealed no significant differences between the tested materials (p=0.150). Pairwise comparison demonstrated significant differences between stainless steel and gold (p=0.047).

Conclusion

Our results indicate that initial biofilm formation seemed to be less on stainless steel surfaces compared with other traditional materials in a short-term observation. Future studies should examine whether there is a difference in long-term biofilm accumulation between stainless steel, gold and ceramic brackets.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Dittmer et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kusy RP: Orthodontic biomaterials: from the past to the present. Angle Orthod 2002, 72:501-512.
• [2]Thurow RC. Edgewise Orthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby 1972, v-viii. p. 22–34,148,270.
• [3]Keith O, Kusy RP, Whitley JQ: Zirconia brackets: an evaluation morphology and coefficients of friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994, 106:605-614.
• [4]Kusy RP: Morphology of polycrystalline alumina brackets and its relationship to fracture toughness and strength. Angle Orthod 1988, 58:197-203.
• [5]Swartz ML: Ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1988, 22:82-88.
• [6]Wiechmann D: A new bracket system for lingual orthodontic treatment. Part 1: Theoretical background and development. J Orofac Orthop 2002, 63:234-245.
• [7]Wiechmann D: A new bracket system for lingual orthodontic treatment. Part 2: First clinical experiences and further development. J Orofac Orthop 2003, 64:372-388.
• [8]Wiechmann D, Rummel V, Thalheim A, Simon JS, Wiechmann L: Customized brackets and archwires for lingual orthodontic treatment. J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003, 124:593-599.
• [9]Anhoury P, Nathanson D, Hughes CV, Socransky S, Feres M, Chou LL: Microbial profile on metallic and ceramic bracket materials. Angle Orthod 2002, 72:338-343.
• [10]Eliades T, Eliades G, Brantley WA: Microbial attachment on orthodontic appliances: I. Wettability and early pellicle formation on bracket materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995, 108:351-360.
• [11]Quirynen M, Bollen CM: The influence of surface roughness and surface free-energy on supra-and subgingival plaque in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995, 22:1-14.
• [12]Siegrist BE, Brecx MC, Gusberti FA, Joss A, Lang NP: In vivo early human dental plaque formation on different supporting substances. A scanning electron microscopic and bacteriological study. Clin Oral Implant Res 1991, 2:38-46.
• [13]Weerkamp AH, Quirynen M, Marechal M, van der Mei HC, van Steenberghe D, Busscher HJ: The role of surface free energy in the early in vivo formation of dental plaque on human enamel and polymeric substrata. Microb Ecol Health and Dis 1989, 2:11-18.
• [14]Auschill TM, Arweiler NB, Brecx M, Reich E, Sculean A, Netuschil L: The effect of dental restorative materials on dental biofilm. Eur JOral Sci 2002, 110:48-53.
• [15]Hahn R, Neutschil L, Loè STC: Initiale Plaquebesiedlung keramischer Restaurationsmaterialien. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1992, 47:330-334.
• [16]Savitt ED, Malament KA, Sokransky SS, Melcer AJ, Backman KJ: Effects on colonization of oral microbiota by a cast glass ceramic restoration. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1987, 2:23-35.
• [17]Skjùrland KK: Bacterial accumulation on silicate and composite materials. J Biol Buccale 1976, 4:315-322.
• [18]Wise MG, Dykema RW: The plaque-retaining capacity of four dental materials. J Prosthet Dent 1975, 33:178-190.
• [19]Augthun M, Brauner A: Antimikrobielle Wirkung unterschiedlicher Dentallegierungen auf Keime oder oralen Mirkoflora in vitro. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1988, 43:869-873.
• [20]Diamanti-Kipioti A, Diamanti-Kipioti A, Gusberti FA, Lang NP: Clinical and microbiological effects of fixed orthodontic appliances. J Clin Periodontol 1987, 14:326-333.
• [21]Paolantonio M, Festa F, di Placido G, D’Attilio M, Catamo G, Piccolomini R: Site-specific subgingival colonization by Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999, 115:423-428.
• [22]Chang HS, Walsh LJ, Freer TJ: The effect of orthodontic treatment on salivary flow, pH, buffer capacity, and levels of mutans streptococci and lactobacilli. Aust Orthod J 1999, 15:229-234.
• [23]Hägg U, Kaveewatcharanont P, Samaranayake YH, Samaranayake LP: The effect of fixed orthodontic appliances on the oral carriage of Candida species and Enterobacteriaceae. Europ J Orthod 2004, 26:623-629.
• [24]Atack NE, Sandy JR, Addy M: Periodontal and microbiological changes associated with the placement of orthodontic appliances. A review J Periodontol 1996, 67:78-85.
• [25]Naranjo AA, Trivino ML, Jaramillo A, Betancourth M, Botero JE: Changes in the subgingival microbiota and periodontal parameters before and 3 months after bracket placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006, 130:275e217-22.
• [26]Ahn SJ, Lim BS, Lee SJ: Prevalence of cariogenic streptococci on incisor brackets detected by polymerase chain reaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007, 131:736-741.
• [27]van Gastel J, Quirynen M, Teughels W, Coucke W, Carels C: Longitudinal changes in microbiology and clinical periodontal variables after placement of fixed orthodontic appliances. J Periodontol 2008, 79:2078-2086.
• [28]Lang NP, Adler R, Joss A, Nyman S: Absence of bleeding on probing. An indicator of periodontal stability. J Clin Periodontol 1990, 17:714-721.
• [29]Silness J, Löe H: Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand 1964, 22:121-135.
• [30]Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E: Three-dimensional measurement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007, 131:301e309-315.
• [31]Stratmann U, Schaarschmidt K, Wegener H, Ehmer U: The extent of enamel surface fractures. A quantitative comparison of thermally debonded ceramic and mechanically debonded metal brackets by energy dispersive micro-and image-analysis. Eur J Orthod 1996, 18:655-662.
• [32]Arweiler NB, Hellwig E, Sculean A, Hein N, Aushill TM: Individual Vitality Pattern of in situ Dental Biofilms at Different Locations in the Oral Cavity. Caries Res 2004, 38:442-447.
• [33]Auschill TM, Hellwig E, Sculean A, Hein N, Arweiler NB: Impact of the intraoral location on the rate of biofilm growth. Clin Oral Invest 2004, 8:97-101.
• [34]Hanning M: Transmission electron microscopy of early plaque formation on dental materials in vivo. Eur J Oral Sci 1999, 107:55-64.
• [35]Zachrisson S, Zachrisson BU: Gingival condition associated with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1972, 42:26-34.
• [36]Bollen CM, Papaioannou 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 Implant Res 1996, 7:201-211.
• [37]Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D: The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: Short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996, 11:169-178.
• [38]Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM: Microbial biofilms. Atm Rev Microbiol 1995, 49:711-745.
• [39]Shotton DM: Confocal scanning optical microscopy and its applications for biological specimens. £ Cell Sci 1989, 94:175-206.
• [40]Wood S, Kirkham J, Marsh PD, Shore RC, Naltress B, Robinson C: Architecture of Intact Natural Human Plaque Biofilms Studied by Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy. J Dent Res 2000, 79:21-27.
• [41]Fournier A, Payant L, Bouclin R: Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998, 114:414-417.
• [42]Knoernschild KL, Rogers HM, Lefebvre CA, Fortson WM, Schuster GS: Endotoxin affinity for orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999, 115:634-639.
• [43]Ahn SJ, Kho HS, Lee SW, Nahm DS: Roles of salivary proteins in the adherence of oral streptococci to various orthodontic brackets. J Dent Res 2002, 81:411-415.
• [44]Passariello C, Gigola P: Adhesion and biofilm formation by oral streptococci on different commercial brackets. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013, 14:125-130.
• [45]Matasa CG: Pros and cons of the reuse of direct-bonded appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989, 96:72-76.
• [46]Lin MC, Lin SC, Lee TH, Huang HH: Surface analysis and corrosion resistance of different stainless steel orthodontic brackets in artificial saliva. Angle Orthod 2006, 76:322-329.