Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size   Users Online: 173
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 34

Evaluation of biofilm formation on different clear orthodontic retainer materials


1 Department of Basic Science, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq
2 Department of Pedodontics Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

Correspondence Address:
Saeed AlSamak
Department of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul
Iraq
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jos.jos_7_22

Rights and Permissions

Aim: To assess the chemical composition and oral biofilm formation on different types of commercially available clear orthodontic retainer materials (CORM). Materials and Methods: Four types of CORM commercially available were used (Clear advantage series I (CAS1), Clear advantage series II (CAS2), Endure (ES), and CENTRI FORM-clear rigid material (CFCRM)). Circular samples (12 mm diameter) of each CORM were prepared for (n = 40). Unstimulated saliva from twenty volunteers was collected. Fourier Transformation Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) was used for the evaluation of the chemical composition of CORM. For the quantitative assessment of oral biofilm formation, samples of each CORM were incubated for twenty-four hours, and crystal violet assay (CVA) was utilized. The degree of absorbance was measured using a spectrophotometer at 570 nm. For qualitative evaluation of oral formation, the samples of each CORM were incubated for 24 hours, and viable biofilm cells stained by acridine orange were examined under a fluorescent microscope. Results: FTIR findings showed that CAS2 was made of polypropylene and ES is made of polyvinyl chloride, while others were made of co-polyester. CVA results confirmed that CAS2 showed the lowest biofilm formation, which differs significantly compared to CAS1, CFCRM, and ES. No significant difference in biofilm formation was detected between CAS1, CFCRM, and ES. Viable biofilm cells staining by acridine orange showed that CAS2 demonstrated smaller microcolonies of viable biofilm cells compared with CAS1, CFCRM, and ES, which confirmed the result obtained by CVA. Conclusions: CAS2 showed anti-microbial activities with a decrease the in vitro biofilm formation, which may be related to its chemical composition.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed224    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded23    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal