Limits...
Microbial contamination of toothbrushes during treatment with multibracket appliances.

Eichenauer J, von Bremen J, Ruf S - Head Face Med (2014)

Bottom Line: Regarding the retention of microorganisms, no differences could be detected between the two bristle designs.However, the amount of S. mutans was significantly higher on brushes used by MB-patients (p < 0.005) than on the brushes of subjects without MB.The number of Lactobacilli and C. albicans was minimal in all cases and below statistical evaluation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Justus-Liebig-University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany. Julia.v.Bremen@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: It was aimed to assess the retention of caries-associated microorganisms on two different manual toothbrushes (conventional and tapered) and to evaluate the influence of multibracket appliances (MB) on the microbial contamination of the brush head.

Methods: 50 MB-patients and 50 subjects without MB received a toothbrush (elmex® interX medium short head or meridol®) plus toothpaste (elmex®) for exclusive use and an information sheet with standardised brushing instructions. After 14 days of regular tooth brushing, the brushes were collected and sluiced in Sputasol solution. The suspension was incubated on selective agar plates and the amount of Streptococcus mutans, lactobacilli and Candida albicans for each brush head was assessed.

Results: Regarding the retention of microorganisms, no differences could be detected between the two bristle designs. However, the amount of S. mutans was significantly higher on brushes used by MB-patients (p < 0.005) than on the brushes of subjects without MB. The number of Lactobacilli and C. albicans was minimal in all cases and below statistical evaluation.

Conclusions: During treatment with MB appliances, toothbrushes were contaminated more intensely with S. mutans independent of bristle design. A more frequent replacement of toothbrushes may thus be recommended for patients undergoing MB-treatment.

Show MeSH
Design of toothbrush heads of brand-new elmex® (left) and meridol® toothbrushes (right).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4197314&req=5

Fig1: Design of toothbrush heads of brand-new elmex® (left) and meridol® toothbrushes (right).

Mentions: Further inclusion criteria were a healthy or conservatively treated permanent dentition. Subjects with systemic diseases, mental or physical disabilities, caries, periodontic problems or long-term medication were not included. The use of antibiotic or other anti-infective agents was not allowed during the trial. Before beginning, ethical approval was obtained from the ethic committee (University of Giessen, No.140/08). All participants had to give prior written informed consent. If subjects were under 18 years of age, an additional parental consent was obtained. Subsequently subjects were pseudonymised and randomly assigned either a manual toothbrush with tapered filaments (meridol®) or a toothbrush with conventional cylindrical bristles (elmex®). Thus, four groups with 25 participants each were formed: MB-subjects using the elmex® brush (MBe), MB-subjects using the meridol® brush (MBm) and subjects without MB using either the elmex® (nMBe) or meridol® brush (nMBm) (Table 1).Both toothbrushes were multi-tufted, constructed with staple-set tufting and differed in filaments´ shape and diameter. The elmex® toothbrush head was comprised of 27 tufts with nylon filaments of 0.175 and 0.2 mm, which were end-rounded and medium stiff. In contrast the meridol® toothbrush had 37 tufts with conical soft bristles ranging from 0.18 mm at the base to 0.05 mm at the top (GABA, Lörrach, Germany) (Figure 1).Table 1


Microbial contamination of toothbrushes during treatment with multibracket appliances.

Eichenauer J, von Bremen J, Ruf S - Head Face Med (2014)

Design of toothbrush heads of brand-new elmex® (left) and meridol® toothbrushes (right).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4197314&req=5

Fig1: Design of toothbrush heads of brand-new elmex® (left) and meridol® toothbrushes (right).
Mentions: Further inclusion criteria were a healthy or conservatively treated permanent dentition. Subjects with systemic diseases, mental or physical disabilities, caries, periodontic problems or long-term medication were not included. The use of antibiotic or other anti-infective agents was not allowed during the trial. Before beginning, ethical approval was obtained from the ethic committee (University of Giessen, No.140/08). All participants had to give prior written informed consent. If subjects were under 18 years of age, an additional parental consent was obtained. Subsequently subjects were pseudonymised and randomly assigned either a manual toothbrush with tapered filaments (meridol®) or a toothbrush with conventional cylindrical bristles (elmex®). Thus, four groups with 25 participants each were formed: MB-subjects using the elmex® brush (MBe), MB-subjects using the meridol® brush (MBm) and subjects without MB using either the elmex® (nMBe) or meridol® brush (nMBm) (Table 1).Both toothbrushes were multi-tufted, constructed with staple-set tufting and differed in filaments´ shape and diameter. The elmex® toothbrush head was comprised of 27 tufts with nylon filaments of 0.175 and 0.2 mm, which were end-rounded and medium stiff. In contrast the meridol® toothbrush had 37 tufts with conical soft bristles ranging from 0.18 mm at the base to 0.05 mm at the top (GABA, Lörrach, Germany) (Figure 1).Table 1

Bottom Line: Regarding the retention of microorganisms, no differences could be detected between the two bristle designs.However, the amount of S. mutans was significantly higher on brushes used by MB-patients (p < 0.005) than on the brushes of subjects without MB.The number of Lactobacilli and C. albicans was minimal in all cases and below statistical evaluation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Justus-Liebig-University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany. Julia.v.Bremen@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: It was aimed to assess the retention of caries-associated microorganisms on two different manual toothbrushes (conventional and tapered) and to evaluate the influence of multibracket appliances (MB) on the microbial contamination of the brush head.

Methods: 50 MB-patients and 50 subjects without MB received a toothbrush (elmex® interX medium short head or meridol®) plus toothpaste (elmex®) for exclusive use and an information sheet with standardised brushing instructions. After 14 days of regular tooth brushing, the brushes were collected and sluiced in Sputasol solution. The suspension was incubated on selective agar plates and the amount of Streptococcus mutans, lactobacilli and Candida albicans for each brush head was assessed.

Results: Regarding the retention of microorganisms, no differences could be detected between the two bristle designs. However, the amount of S. mutans was significantly higher on brushes used by MB-patients (p < 0.005) than on the brushes of subjects without MB. The number of Lactobacilli and C. albicans was minimal in all cases and below statistical evaluation.

Conclusions: During treatment with MB appliances, toothbrushes were contaminated more intensely with S. mutans independent of bristle design. A more frequent replacement of toothbrushes may thus be recommended for patients undergoing MB-treatment.

Show MeSH