Cited by 53Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsOral microbiology and periodontitis researchDental materials and restorations

Microbial Adhesion on Different Bracket Types in vitro

Open access
Gastel, Janvan, Quirynen, Marc, Teughels, Wim, Pauwels, Martine, Coucke, Wim, Carels, Carine·2009·The Angle Orthodontist

Abstract

Objective: To test the hypothesis that there are differences in total bacterial counts and capacity for biofilm formation between seven different bracket types. Material and Methods: By means of an in vitro experiment, seven commercially available bracket systems (Damon [A], Clarity [B], Mystique [C], Speed [D], Victory MBT [E], Micro-loc [F], and Generus [G]) were compared. A total of 25 premolar brackets of each bracket system were incubated in brain heart infusion medium containing the saliva and bacteria of two orthodontic patients. After 72 hours, the amounts of aerobe and anaerobe bacteria were determined by counting the colony-forming units (CFU). The CFU ratio (aerobe/anaerobe) also was calculated, and the black pigmented bacteria were analyzed. Results: Significant differences between the different bracket types in terms of biofilm formation were found. Bracket types can be arbitrarily divided into low, intermediate, and high plaque-retaining brackets. The group with low adhesion consists of bracket types E, F, and G; the group with high adhesion of bracket types A, B, and C; and type D exhibits intermediate adhesion. The group with high microbial adhesion (A, B, and C) did present significantly lower CFU ratios (aerobe/anaerobe) than were exhibited by the other bracket systems (P < .05). Conclusion: The hypothesis is accepted. Orthodontic brackets serve as different loci for biofilm formation; in this in vitro study, significant differences were noted between the different types of brackets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2319/092908-507.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The presence of a ligature rather than a clip around conventional brackets may hinder effective plaque removal compared with self-ligating brackets.

    “The presence of a ligature rather than a clip around CBs may hinder effective plaque removal (van Gastel et al., 2009) when compared with SLBs (Harradine, 2013)”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 53

Authors
Gastel, J., Quirynen, M., Teughels, W., Pauwels, M., Coucke, W., & Carels, C.
Affiliations
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique (BE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
The Angle Orthodontist
Published
2009-09
Volume
79
Issue
5
Pages
915-921
ISSN
  • 0003-3219 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7103
OpenAlex
W2118285078
Cited by
53
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Angle Orthodontist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
Keywords
orthodontic brackets, microbial adhesion, biofilm formation, plaque retention, black-pigmented bacteria, premolars, Damon, clarity, speed
MeSH terms
Bacterial Adhesion, Dental Plaque, Humans, Saliva, Colony Count, Microbial, Orthodontic Appliance Design, Orthodontic Brackets, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Biofilms, Prevotella intermedia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review