Microbial Adhesion on Different Bracket Types in vitro
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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)”
From Microbial colonisation associated with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as van Gastel et al., 2009
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
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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