Comparison of Bacterial Adherence on Different Archwires after Clinical Use
Background: An essential component of orthodontic therapy, orthodontic archwires may operate as surfaces for bacterial adhesion, which might result in issues with oral health. Materials and Methods: This study assessed the bacterial adhesion to three different kinds of orthodontic archwires: beta-ti...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_974_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841543473184899072 |
|---|---|
| author | Syed Ashique Abdulhameed Nakul N. Mude Divya Chandrasekaran Dwijesh S. Goswami Omar Naif Almutairi Priya Manimegalan |
| author_facet | Syed Ashique Abdulhameed Nakul N. Mude Divya Chandrasekaran Dwijesh S. Goswami Omar Naif Almutairi Priya Manimegalan |
| author_sort | Syed Ashique Abdulhameed |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background:
An essential component of orthodontic therapy, orthodontic archwires may operate as surfaces for bacterial adhesion, which might result in issues with oral health.
Materials and Methods:
This study assessed the bacterial adhesion to three different kinds of orthodontic archwires: beta-titanium (TMA), nickel-titanium (NiTi), and stainless steel (SS). At the conclusion of the clinical usage period, samples of each kind of archwire were gathered and submitted to microbiological investigation in order to determine the quantity of adhering bacterial colonies. Using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the surface properties of the archwires were evaluated after usage.
Results:
The three kinds of archwires had significantly different rates of bacterial adhesion, according to the findings. With an average of 1500 ± 50 CFU/mm2, SS archwires showed the highest level of bacterial adhesion, followed by NiTi archwires at 1100 ± 45 CFU/mm2. The least amount of bacteria adhered to TMA archwires, with an average of 800 ± 30 CFU/mm2. According to SEM pictures, the degree of bacterial adhesion was associated with the archwires’ surface roughness, with smoother surfaces showing less bacterial colonization.
Conclusion:
In comparison with SS and NiTi archwires, the research finds that TMA archwires are linked to the least amount of bacterial adhesion. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8d1d2c6a25ad4f46a5c9fe2c70c43b74 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0976-4879 0975-7406 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj-art-8d1d2c6a25ad4f46a5c9fe2c70c43b742025-01-13T10:26:17ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062024-12-0116Suppl 4S3778S378010.4103/jpbs.jpbs_974_24Comparison of Bacterial Adherence on Different Archwires after Clinical UseSyed Ashique AbdulhameedNakul N. MudeDivya ChandrasekaranDwijesh S. GoswamiOmar Naif AlmutairiPriya ManimegalanBackground: An essential component of orthodontic therapy, orthodontic archwires may operate as surfaces for bacterial adhesion, which might result in issues with oral health. Materials and Methods: This study assessed the bacterial adhesion to three different kinds of orthodontic archwires: beta-titanium (TMA), nickel-titanium (NiTi), and stainless steel (SS). At the conclusion of the clinical usage period, samples of each kind of archwire were gathered and submitted to microbiological investigation in order to determine the quantity of adhering bacterial colonies. Using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the surface properties of the archwires were evaluated after usage. Results: The three kinds of archwires had significantly different rates of bacterial adhesion, according to the findings. With an average of 1500 ± 50 CFU/mm2, SS archwires showed the highest level of bacterial adhesion, followed by NiTi archwires at 1100 ± 45 CFU/mm2. The least amount of bacteria adhered to TMA archwires, with an average of 800 ± 30 CFU/mm2. According to SEM pictures, the degree of bacterial adhesion was associated with the archwires’ surface roughness, with smoother surfaces showing less bacterial colonization. Conclusion: In comparison with SS and NiTi archwires, the research finds that TMA archwires are linked to the least amount of bacterial adhesion.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_974_24bacterial adherencebeta-titaniumclinical usemicrobiological analysisnickel-titaniumorthodontic archwiresscanning electron microscopystainless steel |
| spellingShingle | Syed Ashique Abdulhameed Nakul N. Mude Divya Chandrasekaran Dwijesh S. Goswami Omar Naif Almutairi Priya Manimegalan Comparison of Bacterial Adherence on Different Archwires after Clinical Use Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences bacterial adherence beta-titanium clinical use microbiological analysis nickel-titanium orthodontic archwires scanning electron microscopy stainless steel |
| title | Comparison of Bacterial Adherence on Different Archwires after Clinical Use |
| title_full | Comparison of Bacterial Adherence on Different Archwires after Clinical Use |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Bacterial Adherence on Different Archwires after Clinical Use |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Bacterial Adherence on Different Archwires after Clinical Use |
| title_short | Comparison of Bacterial Adherence on Different Archwires after Clinical Use |
| title_sort | comparison of bacterial adherence on different archwires after clinical use |
| topic | bacterial adherence beta-titanium clinical use microbiological analysis nickel-titanium orthodontic archwires scanning electron microscopy stainless steel |
| url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_974_24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT syedashiqueabdulhameed comparisonofbacterialadherenceondifferentarchwiresafterclinicaluse AT nakulnmude comparisonofbacterialadherenceondifferentarchwiresafterclinicaluse AT divyachandrasekaran comparisonofbacterialadherenceondifferentarchwiresafterclinicaluse AT dwijeshsgoswami comparisonofbacterialadherenceondifferentarchwiresafterclinicaluse AT omarnaifalmutairi comparisonofbacterialadherenceondifferentarchwiresafterclinicaluse AT priyamanimegalan comparisonofbacterialadherenceondifferentarchwiresafterclinicaluse |