Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2017; 11(04): 537-547
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_132_17
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Self-ligating versus conventional metallic brackets on Streptococcus mutans retention: A systematic review

Juliano N. Longoni
1   Department of Oral Biology, University of Sacred Heart (USC – Universidade do Sagrado Coração), Bauru, Brazil
,
Beatriz M. V. Lopes
1   Department of Oral Biology, University of Sacred Heart (USC – Universidade do Sagrado Coração), Bauru, Brazil
,
Irlan A. Freires
2   Department of Physiological Sciences, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil
,
Kamile L. Dutra
3   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina(UFSC), Florianópolis, Brazil
,
Ademir Franco
4   Department of Stomatology, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil
,
Luiz R. Paranhos
5   Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), Lagarto, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
01 October 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The present study aimed to review the literature systematically and assess comparatively whether self-ligating metallic brackets accumulate less Streptococcus mutans biofilm than conventional metallic brackets. Material and methods: The systematic search was performed following PRISMA guidelines and registration in PROSPERO. Seven electronic databases (Google Scholar, LILACS, Open Grey, PubMed, SciELO, ScienceDirect, and Scopus) were consulted until April 2016, with no restriction of language and time of publication. Only randomized clinical studies verifying S. mutans colonization in metallic brackets (self-ligating and conventional) were included. All steps were performed independently by two operators. Results: The search resulted in 546 records obtained from the electronic databases. Additionally, 216 references obtained from the manual search of eligible articles were assessed. Finally, a total of 5 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. In 1 study, the total bacterial count was not different among self-ligating and conventional brackets, whereas in 2 studies the amount was lower for self-ligating brackets. Regarding the specific count of S. mutans, 2 studies showed less accumulation in self-ligating than in conventional brackets. Conclusion: Based on the limited evidence, self-ligating metallic brackets accumulate less S. mutans than conventional ones. However, these findings must be interpreted in conjunction with particularities individual for each patient – such as hygiene and dietary habits, which are components of the multifactorial environment that enables S. Mutans to proliferate and keep retained in the oral cavity.

Key words:

Biofilm - brackets - orthodontics - Streptococcus mutans
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Ousehal L, Lazrak L, Es-Said R, Hamdoune H, Elquars F, Khadija A. Evaluation of dental plaque control in patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances: A clinical study. Int Orthod 2011; 9: 140-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gwinnett AJ, Ceen RF. Plaque distribution on bonded brackets: a scanning microscope study. Am J Orthod 1979; 75: 667-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mota SM, Enoki C, Ito IY, Elias AM, Matsumoto MA. Streptococcus mutans counts in plaque adjacent to orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modifiedglass ionomer cement or resin-based composite. Braz Oral Res 2008; 22: 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bhagchandani J, Singh AK, Mehrotra P, Shashi Kumar HC, Varshney SR, Varshney KR. Microbial colonization around orthodontic ligature ties: An in vivo study. APOS Trend Orthod 2013; 3: 72-7
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Corghi RG, Malavazi DF, Quintela MM, Aquino DR, da Silva HG, Roman-Torres CV. Evaluation of periodontal clinical parameters of patients with orthodontic appliances with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Braz J Periodontol 2014; 24: 30-4
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Pradeep S. Determination of microbiological flora of different hygienic ligatures techniques – An in vivo study. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 2014; 3: 739-46
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Türkkahraman H, Sayin MO, Bozkurt FY, Yetkin Z, Kaya S, Onal S. Archwire ligation techniques, microbial colonization, and periodontal status in orthodontically treated patients. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 231-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Benson PE, Douglas CW, Martin MV. Fluoridated elastomers: Effect on the microbiology of plaque. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 325-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Velazquez-Enriquez UI, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Contreras-Bulnes R, Flores-Estrada J, Uematsu S, Yamaguchi R. Quantitative analysis of S. mutans and S. sobrinus cultivated independently and adhered to polished orthodontic composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci 2012; 20: 544-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 van Gastel J, Quirynen M, Teughels W, Pauwels M, Coucke W, Carels C. Microbial adhesion on different bracket types in vitro . Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 915-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 do Nascimento LE, Pithon MM, dos Santos RL, Freitas AO, Alviano DS, Nojima LI. et al. Colonization of Streptococcus mutans on esthetic brackets: Self-ligating vs. conventional. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143 (Suppl. 04) 72-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Da Silva LJ, Mattos FS, da Silva MG, Araújo AM, Werneck EC. Determination of microorganisms found in Alexander's and self-ligating brackets. Ortodont SPO 2010; 43: 227-34
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Baka ZM, Basciftci FA, Arslan U. Effects of 2 bracket and ligation types on plaque retention: A quantitative microbiologic analysis with real-time polymerase chain reaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 260-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pandis N, Papaioannou W, Kontou E, Nakou M, Makou M, Eliades T. Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 94-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mummolo S, Marchetti E, Giuca MR, Gallusi G, Tecco S, Gatto R. et al. In-office bacteria test for a microbial monitoring during the conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Head Face Med 2013; 9: 7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hassan KS, Alagl AS, Ali I. Periodontal status following self-ligature versus archwire ligation techniques in orthodonticallytreated patients – Clinical, microbiological and biochemical evaluation. Orthod Waves 2010; 69: 164-70
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, McLeod J, Covell Jr DA, Maier T. et al. Plaque retention by self-ligating vs. elastomeric orthodontic brackets: Quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135 (426) e1-9
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Pithon MM, Santos RL, Nascimento LE, Ayres AO, Alviano D, Bolognese AM. Do self-ligating brackets favor greater bacterial aggregation?. Braz J Oral Sci 2011; 10: 208-12
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Deeks J, Gatsonis C. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 PROSPERO. International Prospective Register of Systeatic Reviews. University of York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2013
  • 22 The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. The GRADE Working Group; 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Alkis H, Turkkahraman H, Adanir N. Microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive systems. Eur J Dent 2015; 9: 117-21
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Buyuk SK, Cantekin K, Demirbuga S, Ozturk MA. Are the low-shrinking composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding?. Eur J Dent 2013; 7: 284-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar