The effect of ligation methods on biofilm formation in patients undergoing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic therapy - A systematic review.
biofilm
elastomer
orthodontic
self-ligating
stainless steel ligation
Journal
Orthodontics & craniofacial research
ISSN: 1601-6343
Titre abrégé: Orthod Craniofac Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101144387
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
revised:
06
05
2021
received:
03
03
2021
accepted:
18
05
2021
pubmed:
28
5
2021
medline:
29
1
2022
entrez:
27
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Many modifications to fixed orthodontic appliances have been introduced to manage biofilm formation. The aim of this review was to investigate elastomeric ligation in comparison with stainless steel ligation and self-ligation with regard to microbiological and clinical indicators of biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances. The MEDLINE and the EMBASE databases were searched up to February 2021 and supplemented by additional manual searches of bibliographies. Parallel-group and split-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different ligation methods were identified. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool was applied to assess the quality of evidence. A total of 11 RCTs were included in this review. Nine RCTs compared self-ligation and elastomeric ligation; two compared elastomeric ligation and stainless steel ligation. The included studies had either some concerns or were at a high risk of bias. Qualitative assessment of the studies identified that there were no significant differences in biofilm formation between elastomeric ligation and self-ligation, but that stainless steel ligation was less susceptible to biofilm formation than elastomeric ligation. There were no significant differences between self-ligation and elastomeric ligation for biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances. Stainless steel ligation may accumulate less biofilm than elastomeric ligation; however, the clinical significance of the difference could not be evaluated. Further high-quality studies are required in order to determine which ligation method is better for managing biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many modifications to fixed orthodontic appliances have been introduced to manage biofilm formation. The aim of this review was to investigate elastomeric ligation in comparison with stainless steel ligation and self-ligation with regard to microbiological and clinical indicators of biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances.
METHODS
METHODS
The MEDLINE and the EMBASE databases were searched up to February 2021 and supplemented by additional manual searches of bibliographies. Parallel-group and split-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different ligation methods were identified. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool was applied to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 11 RCTs were included in this review. Nine RCTs compared self-ligation and elastomeric ligation; two compared elastomeric ligation and stainless steel ligation. The included studies had either some concerns or were at a high risk of bias. Qualitative assessment of the studies identified that there were no significant differences in biofilm formation between elastomeric ligation and self-ligation, but that stainless steel ligation was less susceptible to biofilm formation than elastomeric ligation.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There were no significant differences between self-ligation and elastomeric ligation for biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances. Stainless steel ligation may accumulate less biofilm than elastomeric ligation; however, the clinical significance of the difference could not be evaluated. Further high-quality studies are required in order to determine which ligation method is better for managing biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances.
Substances chimiques
Stainless Steel
12597-68-1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
14-30Informations de copyright
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Sawhney R, Sharma R, Sharma K. Microbial Colonization on Elastomeric Ligatures during Orthodontic Therapeutics: An Overview. Turk. J. Orthod. 2018;31(1):21-25.
de Freitas AOA, Marquezan M, Nojima MdCG, Alviano DS, Maia LC. The influence of orthodontic fixed appliances on the oral microbiota: a systematic review. Dental Press. J Orthod. 2014;19(2):46-55.
Condò R, Casaglia A, Armellin E, Condò SG, Cerroni L. Traditional elastic ligatures versus slide ligation system. A morphological evaluation. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2013;6(1):15-24.
Ren Y, Jongsma MA, Mei L, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and biofilm formation-a potential public health threat? journal article. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(7):1711-1718.
Lucchese A, Bondemark L, Marcolina M, Manuelli M. Changes in oral microbiota due to orthodontic appliances: a systematic review. J Oral Microbiol. 2018;10(1):1476645.
Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, Cugini MA, Smith C, Kent RL Jr. Microbial complexes in subgingival plaque. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25(2):134-144.
Arnold S, Koletsi D, Patcas R, Eliades T. The effect of bracket ligation on the periodontal status of adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;54:13-24.
Longoni JN, Lopes BMV, Freires IA, Dutra KL, Franco A, Paranhos LR. Self-ligating versus conventional metallic brackets on Streptococcus mutans retention: A systematic review. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(4):537-547.
Yang X, Su N, Shi Z, et al. Effects of self-ligating brackets on oral hygiene and discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Dent Hyg. 2017;15(1):16-22.
Nascimento LEAGdo, Souza MMGde, Azevedo ARP, Maia LC. Are self-ligating brackets related to less formation of Streptococcus mutans colonies? A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(1):60-68.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366: l4898.
Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924.
Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(10):991-996.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634.
Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson 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(4):426.e1-9.
Buck T, Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, et al. Elastomeric-ligated vs self-ligating appliances: A pilot study examining microbial colonization and white spot lesion formation after 1 year of orthodontic treatment. Orthodontics (Chic). 2011;12:108-121.
Chhibber A, Agarwal S, Yadav S, Kuo CL, Upadhyay M. Which orthodontic appliance is best for oral hygiene? A randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(2):175-183.
Ireland AJ, Soro V, Sprague SV, et al. The effects of different orthodontic appliances upon microbial communities. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014;17(2):115-123.
Folco AA, Benitez-Roge SC, Iglesias M, et al. Gingival response in orthodontic patients: Comparative study between self-ligating and conventional brackets. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2014;27(3):120-124.
Bergamo AZ, Nelson-Filho P, Romano FL, et al. Gingival crevicular fluid volume and periodontal parameters alterations after use of conventional and self-ligating brackets. J Orthod. 2016;43(4):260-267.
Bergamo AZN, Nelson-Filho P, Andrucioli MCD, do Nascimento C, Pedrazzi V, Matsumoto MAN. Microbial complexes levels in conventional and self-ligating brackets. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(4):1037-1046.
Bergamo AZN, Matsumoto MAN, Nascimento CD, et al. Microbial species associated with dental caries found in saliva and in situ after use of self-ligating and conventional brackets. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:e20180426.
Alves de Souza R, de Araújo B, Magnani MB, et al. Periodontal and microbiologic evaluation of 2 methods of archwire ligation: Ligature wires and elastomeric rings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):506-512.
Nalçacı R, Özat Y, Çokakoğlu S, Türkkahraman H, Önal S, Kaya S. Effect of bracket type on halitosis, periodontal status, and microbial colonization. Angle Orthod. 2013;84(3):479-485.
Forsberg CM, Brattstrom V, Malmberg E, Nord CE. Ligature wires and elastomeric rings: two methods of ligation, and their association with microbial colonization of Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli. Eur J Orthod. 1991;13(5):416-420.
Lesaffre E, Philstrom B, Needleman I, Worthington H. The design and analysis of split-mouth studies: What statisticians and clinicians should know. Stat Med. 2009;28:3470-3482.
Heymann GC, Grauer D. A Contemporary Review of White Spot Lesions in Orthodontics. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(2):85-95.
Metin-Gürsoy G, Taner L, Akca G. Nanosilver coated orthodontic brackets: in vivo antibacterial properties and ion release. Eur J Orthod. 2016;39(1):9-16.
Jurela A, Repic D, Pejda S, et al. The effect of two different bracket types on the salivary levels of S mutans and S sobrinus in the early phase of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2012;83:140-145.
Fischman SL. Current status of indices of plaque. J Clin Periodontol. 1986;13(5):371-374.
Lang NP, Adler R, Joss A, Nyman S. Absence of bleeding on probing An indicator of periodontal stability. J Clin Periodontol. 1990;17(10):714-721.
Hefti AF. Periodontal Probing. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997;8(3):336-356.
Steinberg D, Eyal S. Initial biofilm formation of Streptococcus sobrinus on various orthodontics appliances. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31(11):1041-1045.
Paduano S, Cioffi I, Iodice G, Rapuano A, Silva R. Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. Prog Orthod. 2008;9(2):74-80.
Turkkahraman 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(2):231-236.
Sukontapatipark W, El-Agroudi MA, Selliseth NJ, Thunold K, Selvig KA. Bacterial colonization associated with fixed orthodontic appliances. A scanning electron microscopy study. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23(5):475-484.
Akin M, Tezcan M, Ileri Z, Ayhan F. Incidence of white spot lesions among patients treated with self- and conventional ligation systems. Clin Oral Invest. 2015;19(6):1501-1506.
Atik E, Ciğer S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014;84(4):615-622.
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(2):260-267.
Bergamo AZN, Nelson-Filho P, do Nascimento C, et al. Cytokine profile changes in gingival crevicular fluid after placement different brackets types. Arch Oral Biol. 2018;85:79-83.
Bolamperti L, Montanari P, Levrini L, Macchi A, Tagliabue A, Caprioglio A. Tissue response during self-ligating treatment. Prog Orthod. 2012;13(2):109-116.
Cardoso Mde A, Saraiva PP, Maltagliati L, et al. Alterations in plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation promoted by treatment with self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(2):35-41.
Condò R, Casaglia A, Condò SG, Cerroni L. Plaque retention on elastomeric ligatures. An in vivo study. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2012;5(4):92-99.
Nascimento LEAGdo, Souza MMGde, Azevedo ARP, Maia LC. Are self-ligating brackets related to less formation of Streptococcus mutans colonies? A systematic review. Dental Press. J Orthod. 2014;19(1):60-68.
Nascimento LEAGdo, Pithon MM, dos Santos RL, et al. Colonization of Streptococcus mutans on esthetic brackets: self-ligating vs conventional. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(4 Suppl):S72-77.
Gameiro GH, Nouer DF, Cenci MS, Cury JA. Enamel demineralization with two forms of archwire ligation investigated using an in situ caries model-a pilot study. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(5):542-546.
Jung WS, Yang IH, Lim WH, Baek SH, Kim TW, Ahn SJ. Adhesion of mutans streptococci to self-ligating ceramic brackets: in vivo quantitative analysis with real-time polymerase chain reaction. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(6):565-569.
Jurela A, Sudarević K, Budimir A, Brailo V, Lončar Brzak B, Janković B. Clinical and Salivary Findings in Patients with Metal and Crystalline Conventional and Self-Ligating Orthodontic Brackets. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2019;53(3):224-230.
Kaklamanos EG, Mavreas D, Tsalikis L, Karagiannis V, Athanasiou AE. Treatment duration and gingival inflammation in Angle's Class I malocclusion patients treated with the conventional straight-wire method and the Damon technique: a single-centre, randomised clinical trial. J Orthod. 2017;44(2):75-81.
Kaygisiz E, Uzuner FD, Yuksel S, et al. Effects of self-ligating and conventional brackets on halitosis and periodontal conditions. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(3):468-473.
Mummolo S, Marchetti E, Giuca MR, et al. In-office bacteria test for a microbial monitoring during the conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Head Face Med. 2013;9:7.
Pandis N, Vlachopoulos K, Polychronopoulou A, Madianos P, Eliades T. Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008;11(4):211-215.
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(1):94-99.
Pejda S, Varga ML, Milosevic SA, et al. Clinical and microbiological parameters in patients with self-ligating and conventional brackets during early phase of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(1):133-139.
Pithon MM, Santos RLD, Nascimento LE, Ayres AO, Alvian D, Bolognese AM. Do self-ligating brackets favor greater bacterial aggregation? Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences. 2011;10(3):208-212.
Shi J, Liu Y, Hou J, Yan Z, Peng H, Chang X. Comparison of periodontal indices and Porphyromonas gingivalis between conventional and self-ligating brackets. [Chinese]. Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi =. West China journal of stomatology. 2013;31(3):228-231.
Tiwari A, Jain RK. Comparison of enamel demineralisation scores between passive self-ligation brackets and conventional ligation brackets in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment a laser fluorescence study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(11):16-19.
Tupinamba RA, Claro CAA, Pereira CA, Nobrega CJP, Claro APRA. Bacterial adhesion on conventional and self-ligating metallic brackets after surface treatment with plasma-polymerized hexamethyldisiloxane. Dental Press J Orthod. 2017;22(4):77-85.
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(2):231-236.
Uzuner FD, Kaygisiz E, Cankaya ZT. Effect of the bracket types on microbial colonization and periodontal status. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(6):1062-1067.
Van Gastel J, Quirynen M, Teughels W, Coucke W, Carels C. Influence of bracket design on microbial and periodontal parameters in vivo. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34(5):423-431.