4.3 Article

Adhesion of streptococcus mutans to different types of brackets

Journal

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
Volume 77, Issue 6, Pages 1090-1095

Publisher

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/091706-375.1

Keywords

orthodontic brackets; bacterial adhesion; salivary pellicle; streptococcus mutans

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the difference in the adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to three different types of orthodontic brackets and the effect of the presence of an early salivary pellicle and Streptococcus sanguis on adhesion. Materials and Methods: Three adhesion experiments were performed using stainless steel, ceramic, and plastic orthodontic brackets. In the first experiment a clinical strain of S mutans adhered to the three different types of brackets (n = 6 for each). For the second, the brackets were treated with saliva before adhesion of S mutans (n = 6 per type of bracket). Finally, the third experiment concerned saliva coated brackets (n = 6 per type of bracket), but before S mutans, S sanguis bacteria were allowed to adhere. The bacteria were always allowed to adhere for 90 minutes in all the experiments. Adhesion was quantitated by a microbial culture technique by treating the brackets with adhering bacteria with trypsin and enumerating the total viable counts of bacteria recovered after cultivation. Results: There were consistently no differences in the adherence to stainless steel, ceramic, or plastic brackets. The presence of an early salivary pellicle and S sanguis reduced the number of adhering S mutans to all three types of brackets. Conclusions: Adhesion of bacteria to orthodontic brackets depends on several factors. The presence of a salivary pellicle and other bacterial species seem to have a significant effect on the adhesion of S mutans, reducing their numbers and further limiting any differences between types of brackets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available