Comparative Evaluation of Biofilm Adhesion to Different Types of Archwire and Microbiological Colonization During Orthodontic Treatment

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the biofilm adhesion to 4 types of ‘as retrieved’ archwires during orthodontic treatment. To compare biofilm formation by viable cell counting (colony-forming units [CFU]) of microbes ( Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans). Methods: The study was conducted on 40 patients who were divided into 4 equal groups based on the type of archwire of same cross-section (0.019" × 0.025"): group 1—copper-nickel titanium (Cu-NiTi); group 2—titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA); group 3—stainless steel (SS); and group 4—aesthetic coated SS. After 1 month of fixed orthodontic therapy, the archwires were removed carefully from the oral cavity. Results: Biofilm absorbance and biofilm concentration were significant ( P ≤ .05) in all the 4 groups. Conclusion: The group 2 wire showed the maximum affinity for biofilm absorbance and biofilm concentration, whereas the group 4 wire showed the least affinity. The group 4 wire promoted less retention of oral bacteria compared with the wires of the other groups, whereas the group 1 wire showed maximum retention. In the present study, all types of wire showed maximum affinity for S mutans and the least affinity for C albicans, except for the group 1 wire, which showed maximum affinity for S aureus. Biofilm adhesion could be a significant determining factor in the selection of orthodontic archwire for patients primarily at risk of dental caries or periodontal diseases, or both.

Influence of Aesthetic Archwire Coatings on Bacterial Adhesion

“…After the articles were initially selected, nine articles were recovered that matched the established criteria. During the analysis of the collected material, two articles on aesthetic archwires were rejected [12,13], because their authors did not provide precise information about the material with which the orthodontic archwires were coated in their study. Finally, in this review, seven articles were included: three in vivo studies (including two randomized clinical trials [14,15] and one controlled clinical trial [16]) and four in vitro studies [17][18][19][20].…”