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

Dittmer MP, Hellemann CF, Grade S, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Schwestka-Polly R, Demling AP - Head Face Med (2015)

Bottom Line: The Wilcoxon test demonstrated significantly lower biofilm coverage on steel compared to gold (p=0.011).The Friedman test revealed no significant differences between the tested materials (p=0.150).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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center of Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany. marc@drdittmer.de.

ABSTRACT

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.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Three-dimensional reconstruction of biofilm accumulating on ceramic.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4403927&req=5

Fig4: Three-dimensional reconstruction of biofilm accumulating on ceramic.

Mentions: Biofilm was detected by CLSM on all tested bracket materials after exposure to the oral cavity for 48 h. Figure 1 shows the results after analysis of biofilm height with respect to bracket material. On stainless steel surfaces average biofilm height was 4.0 ± 7.3 μm (Figure 2). Biofilm height on gold surfaces was 6.0 ± 6.6 μm (Figure 3), whereas ceramic showed biofilm heights of 6.5 ± 6.0 μm (Figure 4). The Friedman test revealed no significant differences between the tested materials (p=0.150). However, pairwise comparison demonstrated significant differences between stainless steel and gold (p=0.047).Figure 1


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

Dittmer MP, Hellemann CF, Grade S, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Schwestka-Polly R, Demling AP - Head Face Med (2015)

Three-dimensional reconstruction of biofilm accumulating on ceramic.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4403927&req=5

Fig4: Three-dimensional reconstruction of biofilm accumulating on ceramic.
Mentions: Biofilm was detected by CLSM on all tested bracket materials after exposure to the oral cavity for 48 h. Figure 1 shows the results after analysis of biofilm height with respect to bracket material. On stainless steel surfaces average biofilm height was 4.0 ± 7.3 μm (Figure 2). Biofilm height on gold surfaces was 6.0 ± 6.6 μm (Figure 3), whereas ceramic showed biofilm heights of 6.5 ± 6.0 μm (Figure 4). The Friedman test revealed no significant differences between the tested materials (p=0.150). However, pairwise comparison demonstrated significant differences between stainless steel and gold (p=0.047).Figure 1

Bottom Line: The Wilcoxon test demonstrated significantly lower biofilm coverage on steel compared to gold (p=0.011).The Friedman test revealed no significant differences between the tested materials (p=0.150).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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center of Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany. marc@drdittmer.de.

ABSTRACT

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.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus