Journal of Orthodontic Science · 2022 · 14 citations · 31 references
DentistryDental Biomaterials ScienceDental Materials ScienceDental MaterialsProsthodontic MaterialsSurface Properties Of Dental MaterialsBiofilm FormationBiomaterials For Oral RegenerationMicrobiological AnalysisAcridine Orange TestBiofilm Matrix FormationFourier Transform Infrared SpectroscopyOral Biofilm AccumulationOral Biofilm DevelopmentOral Biofilm FormationOrthodontic Appliance MaterialsRetainer Materials
Aim: To assess the chemical composition and oral biofilm formation on different types of commercially available clear orthodontic retainer materials (CORM). Materials and Methods: Four types of CORM commercially available were used (Clear advantage series I (CAS1), Clear advantage series II (CAS2), Endure (ES), and CENTRI FORM-clear rigid material (CFCRM)). Circular samples (12 mm diameter) of each CORM were prepared for (n = 40). Unstimulated saliva from twenty volunteers was collected. Fourier Transformation Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) was used for the evaluation of the chemical composition of CORM. For the quantitative assessment of oral biofilm formation, samples of each CORM were incubated for twenty-four hours, and crystal violet assay (CVA) was utilized. The degree of absorbance was measured using a spectrophotometer at 570 nm. For qualitative evaluation of oral formation, the samples of each CORM were incubated for 24 hours, and viable biofilm cells stained by acridine orange were examined under a fluorescent microscope. Results: FTIR findings showed that CAS2 was made of polypropylene and ES is made of polyvinyl chloride, while others were made of co-polyester. CVA results confirmed that CAS2 showed the lowest biofilm formation, which differs significantly compared to CAS1, CFCRM, and ES. No significant difference in biofilm formation was detected between CAS1, CFCRM, and ES. Viable biofilm cells staining by acridine orange showed that CAS2 demonstrated smaller microcolonies of viable biofilm cells compared with CAS1, CFCRM, and ES, which confirmed the result obtained by CVA. Conclusions: biofilm formation, which may be related to its chemical composition.
31
Gordon D. Christensen, W A Simpson, Janara J. Younger et al. · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · 1985 · 2.2K citations · Full text
Ruth Chércoles Asensio, Margarita San Andrés Moya, José Manuel de la Roja de la Roja et al. · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · 2009 · 353 citations
Natural Sciences, Materials Engineering, Materials Science +14
Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment Methods for Biofilm Growth: A Mini-review.
Christina L. Wilson, Rachel Lukowicz, Stefan Merchant et al. · PubMed · 2017 · 282 citations · Full text