medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2015, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2015; 3 (4)

Bacterial load assessment in metallic versus esthetic brackets

Tristán LJD, Sánchez MW, Mariel CJ, González AAM, Gutiérrez CFJ, Mariel MH

Language: Spanish
References: 26
Page: 228-232
PDF size: 280.07 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the bacterial load in metallic and ceramic brackets and determine which favor dental plaque retention. Material and methods: Extracted premolars divided into 2 groups and analyzed. In one group metal brackets were placed and in the other group, ceramic brackets. Results: Statistical analysis were performed and it was determined that there was no significant difference. Conclusion: The type of bracket used in the orthodontic treatment, is not a determining factor in bacteria adhesion and therefore plaque accumulation as long as proper hygiene is maintained.


REFERENCES

  1. Sawhney R, Berry V. Bacterial biofilm formation, pathogenicity, diagnostics and control: an overview. Indian J Med Sci. 2009; 63 (7): 313-321.

  2. Sharma M, Yadav S. Biofilms: microbes and disease. Braz J Infect Dis. 2008; 12 (6): 526-530.

  3. Rouabhia M, Chmielewski W. Diseases Associated with oral polymicrobial biofilms. Open Mycol J. 2012; 6: 27-32.

  4. Venkataramaiah P, Biradar B. Plaque biofilm. In: Panagakos FS, Davies RM. Gingival diseases - Their aetiology, prevention and treatment. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011: 24-40. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/gingival-diseases-their-aetiology- prevention-and-treatment/plaque-biofilm

  5. Wickström C, Hamilton IR, Svensäter G. Differential metabolic activity by dental plaque bacteria in association with two preparations of MUC5B mucins in solution and in biofilms. Microbiology. 2009; 155: 53-60.

  6. Ciocan D, Dragos S. Anchorage of the modern orthodontic appliances. Annals of the University Dunarea de Jos of Galati. 2012; 17 (Issue 2): 83.

  7. Abdo C, Vieira I. Orthodontic wires: knowledge ensures clinical optimization. Dental Press J Orthod. 2009; 14 (6): 144-157.

  8. Saloom H, Mohammed-Salih H, Rasheed S. The influence of different types of fixed orthodontic appliance on the growth and adherence of microorganisms. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013; 5 (1): 36-41.

  9. Bourzgui F, Sebbar M, Hamza M. Orthodontics and caries. Principles in contemporary orthodontics. InTech; 2011: 309-326.

  10. Sherifa-Mostafa M. The formation of dental microbial biofilm and plaque associated with the presence of orthodontic, Taif, and KSA. IOSR-JDMS. 2014; 13 (3): 95-100.

  11. Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, McLeod J, Covell D, Maier T. Plaque retention by self-ligating versus elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135: 426.e1-426.e9.

  12. van der Veen MH, Attin R, Polly S, Wiechmann D. Caries outcomes after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances: do lingual brackets make a difference? Eur J Oral Sci. 2010; 118: 298-303.

  13. Preoteasa C, Ionescu E, Preoteasa E. Risks and complications associated with orthodontic treatment. Orthodontics: basic aspects and clinical considerations. Rijeka: Intech; 2012: 403-428.

  14. Marsh P. Dental plaque as a biofilm: the significance of pH in health and caries. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009; 30 (2): 76-78, 80, 83-87; quiz 88, 90.

  15. Jadhav T, Mahalinga K, Subraya G, Varghese J. Chronic inflammatory gingival enlargement associated with orthodontic therapy – a case report. J Dent Hyg. 2013; 87 (1): 18-23.

  16. Sfondrini M, Debiaggi M, Zara F, Brerra R, Comelli M, Bianchi M. Influence of lingual bracket position on microbial and periodontal parameters in vivo. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 20 (3): 357-371.

  17. Tamizharasi, Kumar S. Evolution of orthodontic brackets. JIADS. 2012; 1 (30): 25-30.

  18. Kumar A, Duggal R, Mehrotra A. Physical properties and clinical characteristics of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2007; 20 (2): 000-000.

  19. Mohammadi Z. Sodium hypochlorite in endodontics: an update review. IDJ. 2008; 58: 329-341.

  20. Gelman A, Chew G, Shnaidman M. Bayesian analysis of serial dilution assays. Biometrics. 2004; 60: 407-417.

  21. Ahn S, Kho H, Lee S, Nahm D. Roles of salivary proteins in the adherence of bucal streptococci to various orthodontic brackets. J Dent Res. 2002; 81 (6): 411-415.

  22. Anhoury P, Nathanson D, Hughes C, Socransky S, Feres M, Chou L. Microbial profile on metallic and ceramic bracket materials. Angle Orthod. 2002; 42 (4): 338-343.

  23. Brusca M, Chara O, Sterin-Borda L, Rosa A. Influence of different orthodontic brackets on adherence of microorganisms in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77 (2): 331-335.

  24. Papaioannou W, Gizani S, Nassika M, Kontou E, Nakou M. Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to different types of brackets. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77 (6): 1090-1095.

  25. Eliades T, Brantley W. Microbial attachment on orthodontic appliances: I. Wettability and early pellicle formation on brackets materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108 (4): 351-360.

  26. Camargos R. Estudo da microbiota do biofilme supragengival de pacientes emtratamento ortodôntico com diferentes tipos de braquetes. Belo Horizonte. 2008; 77f: II.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com