Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cureus logoLink to Cureus
. 2022 Mar 28;14(3):e23574. doi: 10.7759/cureus.23574

Comparison of Streptococcus mutans Adhesion on New and Recycled Metal Brackets: An In Vitro Study

Vasumathi Thiruvengadam 1,✉, Arun B Chitharanjan 2, Kennedy Kumar 3, Venkatesan Singaram 4
Editors: Alexander Muacevic, John R Adler
PMCID: PMC8964481  PMID: 35371893

Abstract

Background: Evaluation of adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on recycled orthodontic brackets is significant, as Streptococcus mutans is the main causative factor in enamel demineralization and many clinicians, in their practice, resort to reconditioning of brackets, as it is cost-effective. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on new brackets of three different companies (Group I, Group II, and Group III) and brackets recycled by three different recycling methods (RC I: flame heating followed by acid bath; RC II: flame heating followed by ultrasonic cleaning and electropolishing; RC III: flame heating followed by sandblasting and electropolishing).

Materials and methods: A total of 10 brackets from each group were incubated with 108 colony-forming units (CFUs) of Streptococcus mutans in trypticase soy broth overnight. The brackets were then washed with phosphate-buffered saline and treated with 0.25% trypsin for 20 minutes followed by vertexing the solution to remove the adhered bacteria and then the solution was plated on the blood agar and incubated overnight. The total viable count of bacteria was quantified.

Results: Comparing all the three groups and recycling methods, Group II brackets showed significantly more adhesion, Group I brackets showed lesser adhesion, and Group III brackets showed intermediate adhesion. When comparing recycling methods, all the three methods of recycling with all the three groups showed more bacterial adhesion than the control brackets, which was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Recycled brackets showed more bacterial adhesion and electropolishing resulted in reduced bacterial adhesion.

Keywords: flame heating, ultrasonic cleaning, acid bath, sandblast and electropolish, streptococcus mutans adhesion

Introduction

The crux of orthodontic practice involves fixed appliance therapy, which controls the tooth in three-dimensional axes, to achieve proper occlusion and root parallelism. To meet this requirement, bonded brackets should function throughout the course of treatment. Unfortunately, bond failure may manifest before the completion of treatment, necessitating rebonding in the midst of treatment to achieve the ideal tooth position. Besides bond failure, bracket repositioning during treatment could also necessitate the need for rebonding. Recycling of brackets removes adhesive remnants from the bracket base without distortion of bracket surfaces and tie wings, thereby permitting the same bracket to function as a new bracket without compromising much on the bond strength.

Although several commercial recycling methods are available [1-5], the chairside execution of such methods is impractical [5]. This led to the design of many in-office recycling methods such as low-speed air rotor grinding of the adhesives using greenstone [4,6,7] and silicon carbide bur [8], air abrasion using aluminum oxide particles [6-8], direct flaming followed by sandblasting and electropolishing [3], direct flaming followed by ultrasonic cleaning [7] and electropolishing [9], and direct flaming followed by immersion in the acid bath [10].

The complexity of orthodontic brackets and their long periods of attachment to the teeth provide an environment for plaque formation and bacterial adhesion, principally Streptococcus mutans with subsequent enamel demineralization [11,12]. Orthodontic adhesives showed more bacterial adhesion than brackets because of increased surface free energy [13,14]. This difference in bacterial adhesion is attributed more to the composition of the bracket rather than its type [15]. Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans was more in plastic brackets when compared to metal brackets [16,17]. This is contrary to another study that showed a statistically insignificant comparison [18-20]. Few studies showed that saliva coating reduces bacterial adhesion [17,21].

Previous studies on bracket recycling focused primarily on bond strength and clinical survival rate [1,4-8], corrosion resistance [2,3], ion release [22,23], and slot tolerance [6]. Brackets that form an integral part of fixed appliance therapy increase bacterial adhesion. To our knowledge, the influence of recycling methods on bacterial adhesion has not been dealt with in any of the previous studies. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate and compare Streptococcus mutans adhesion on new metal brackets with three different methods of recycled brackets.

Materials and methods

An in vitro study was conducted in a tertiary care center after procuring institutional ethics approval from the Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics and Microbiology (reference number: CSP/13/JUN/29/123). The sample consisted of a total of 120 lower right second premolar brackets from three different companies, each comprising 40 brackets; these were comprised into four broad groups, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample groups.

Groups Control: New brackets RC I: Flame heating and acid bath RC II: Ultrasonic cleaning with electropolishing RC III: Sandblasting with electropolishing
Group I 10 10 10 10
Group II 10 10 10 10
Group III 10 10 10 10
Open in a new tab

Inclusion and exclusion criteria and segregation of sample

A total of 90 human lower premolars, therapeutically extracted for orthodontic treatment, were collected from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Sri Ramachandra University, and from a few private clinics. The tooth selection included an inclusion criterion, which was the age group between 15 and 22 years comprising both males and females. The exclusion criteria were teeth having signs of attrition and abrasion, teeth having caries lesions, and teeth having any visible cracks.

As per the American Dental Association guidelines on handling extracted teeth, the visible blood and gross debris were cleaned from the teeth and immersed in a 10% formalin solution for seven days, which was effective in disinfecting both internal and external structures of the teeth. Then the teeth were stored in saline solution (0.9% NaCl) until used for study purposes. All the 90 teeth were mounted on plaster blocks of 10 teeth each in such a way that the crowns of the teeth were exposed for bonding. Thus, nine separate blocks were randomly segregated into nine sub-groups, namely, Group I-RC I, Group I-RC II, Group I-RC III, Group II-RC I, Group II-RC II, Group II- RC III, Group III-RC I, Group III-RC II, and Group III-RC III, based on the bracket company and recycling method used in this study, as shown in Table 1.

Study design

All the brackets were bonded using the following procedure. The buccal surface of the teeth crowns was polished with pumice and a rubber cup, followed by etching for 15 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid gel (Prime Dental Products Pvt Ltd, Thane, India), then washed for 30 seconds and air-dried. Next, the bonding agent was applied (Ortho Solo Universal Bond Enhancer, SDS Ormco, Ormco Corporation, Glendora, CA) and cured for 20 seconds with a halogen light cure system, with the intensity of 480 nm (visible light cure unit, 3M ESPE, 3M, Saint Paul, MN). Brackets were then bonded using Enlight Light Cure Adhesive (Ormco Corporation) and cured for 40 seconds with the same halogen light cure system, with an intensity of 480 nm (visible light cure unit, 3M ESPE). Brackets were debonded by shear force applied with the blades of the posterior debonding plier in groups for the recycling procedures.

Brackets were recycled with three different methods. The first method was flame heating (Figure 1), followed by an acid bath (Figure 2) (recycling method I, RC I). The adhesive was burned off for 15-20 seconds from each bracket using a soldering torch and each bracket was submerged for 10-15 seconds in a solution of 32% hydrochloric acid and 55% nitric acid mixed in a 1:4 ratio and washed in running water for 30-40 seconds.

Figure 1. Flame heating.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Figure 2. Acid bath.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The second method was ultrasonic cleaning (Figure 3) with electropolishing (Figure 4) (recycling method II, RC II). The adhesive was burned off from each bracket for 15-20 seconds using a soldering torch, and then the entire group of 10 brackets was ultrasonically cleaned for 10 minutes (Confident Ultrasonic Cleaner, Confident, Bengaluru, India) to remove the adhesive remnant and air-dried, and then the entire group of 10 brackets was electropolished by hanging the brackets from the upper U electrode rod using 24 gauge soft stainless steel wire into an electrolytic solution at 5 amps and 220V power for two minutes (Ashpol Electropolishing Unit, Jaypee General Agencies, Calicut, India).

Figure 3. Ultrasonic cleaning.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Figure 4. Electropolishing.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

The third method was sandblasting (Figure 5) with electropolishing (recycling method III, RC III). The adhesive was burned off for three to five seconds from each bracket until the bonding agent started to ignite and burn, followed by sandblasting for 10-20 seconds using 90 µm aluminum oxide particles with 90 PSI pressure. The brackets were held at approximately 10 mm from the tip of the etcher at 900 angulations (Ideal Blaster Sandblasting Unit, Delta Labs, Chennai, India) and the entire group of 10 brackets was electropolished for two minutes.

Figure 5. Sandblasting.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Assessment of bacterial adhesion

In vitro assessment of Streptococcus mutans adhesion on new and recycled brackets was done in the Department of Microbiology. The bracket base was covered with red utility wax to avoid the adhesion of bacteria on the base surface. The brackets were sterilized by the ethylene oxide sterilization method in Central Sterile Supply Department (CSSD). Pure strains of Streptococcus mutans (Microbial Type Culture Collection and Gene Bank (MTCC): 497) were commercially procured from MTCC, Chandigarh in the form of freeze-dried powder and reconstituted as per the instructions given by the manufacturers. Streptococcus mutans suspension of 108 colony-forming units (CFUs) was prepared using McFarland standards; McFarland equivalence standards are intended to be part of a quality control program for adjusting densities of bacterial suspensions that are used for identification and susceptibility testing. Each bracket was first taken in a 2 ml Eppendorf tube having 1 ml trypticase soy broth to which 10 microliters of Streptococcus mutans suspension (108 CFUs) was added (Figure 6). The same was incubated at 37°C in 5% CO2 for 24 hours, with intermittent shaking. After incubation, the bracket was aseptically taken out of the tube using sterile forceps and washed with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution to remove excess nonadherent bacteria after which the wax sheet from the bracket base was removed. Then the bracket was treated with 0.5 ml of 0.25% trypsin for 20 minutes followed by vertexing for two minutes at 2000 rpm to remove the adherent bacteria (REMI Cyclo Mixer, REMI, Mumbai, India). The trypsin solution obtained after vertexing was plated directly into 5% sheep blood agar and diluted to 10-1 fold (0.1 ml of vertexed trypsin solution with 0.9 ml brain heart infusion (BHI) broth) and then plated into 5% sheep blood agar plate to see the viable adherent bacteria. The plates were incubated overnight at 37°C in a 5% CO2 incubator.

Figure 6. Sample.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Data collection

Reading was taken after 24 hours of incubation, wherein growth in 5% sheep blood agar was counted by visual colony counting (Figure 7). Gram stain was done to confirm the growth of Streptococcus mutans. In each group, 10 brackets were tested and the mean colony count was taken for statistical analysis.

Figure 7. Bacterial colonies.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Results

Statistical analysis

Mean and standard deviations were calculated from the readings and the number of CFUs using SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). To find the significant difference in the multivariate analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc test was used.

Determination of bacterial adhesion

The descriptive data showed the mean Streptococcus mutans adhesion (CFUs), as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of the mean Streptococcus mutans (in colony-forming units) of the various groups.

    N Mean Std. deviation Std. error 95% confidence interval for mean Minimum Maximum  
Lower bound Upper bound  
Controls Group I 10 79.250 5.8417 1.8473 75.071 83.429 66.5 85.0  
Group II 10 108.450 12.3141 3.8940 99.641 117.259 91.5 128.0  
Group III 10 90.700 4.9453 1.5638 87.162 94.238 83.0 98.5  
Total 10 92.800 14.6468 2.6741 87.331 98.269 66.5 128.0  
Group I Group I 10 85.700 4.5656 1.4438 82.434 88.966 79.0 95.0  
Group II 10 113.500 9.1803 2.9031 106.933 120.067 101.5 128.0  
Group III 10 94.300 4.1245 1.3043 91.350 97.250 87.5 101.0  
Total 10 97.833 13.3270 2.4332 92.857 102.810 79.0 128.0  
Group II Group I 10 83.850 7.1104 2.2485 78.763 88.937 73.5 97.5  
Group II 10 110.200 7.7035 2.4361 104.689 115.711 101.0 128.0  
Group III 10 93.950 5.5400 1.7519 89.987 97.913 86.5 102.5  
Total 10 96.000 12.8654 2.3489 91.196 100.804 73.5 128.0  
Group III Group I 10 84.300 7.4692 2.3620 78.957 89.643 74.0 96.0  
Group II 10 110.200 8.7882 2.7791 103.913 116.487 101.0 128.0  
Group III 10 93.300 5.7648 1.8230 89.176 97.424 86.0 103.0  
Total 10 95.933 13.0706 2.3864 91.053 100.814 74.0 128.0  
Open in a new tab

Comparison of bacterial adhesion

Comparing the Streptococcus mutans adhesion, the results of the ANOVA indicated a significant difference between groups (P < 0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

    Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Controls Between groups 4329.350 2 2164.675 30.892 0.000
Within groups 1891.950 27 70.072    
Total 6221.300 29      
RC I Between groups 4051.467 2 2025.733 49.759 0.000
Within groups 1099.200 27 40.711    
Total 5150.667 29      
RC II Between groups 3534.650 2 1767.325 37.711 0.000
Within groups 1265.350 27 46.865    
Total 4800.000 29      
RC III Between groups 3458.067 2 1729.033 31.200 0.000
Within groups 1496.300 27 55.419    
Total 4954.367 29      
Open in a new tab

Multiple comparisons between the groups with the post hoc Tukey HSD test (Table 4) revealed that Group I control showed significantly lesser adhesion when compared to Group II (P = 0.000) and Group III controls (P = 0.013), Group III control showed more adhesion than Group I control and lesser adhesion than Group II control (P = 0.000), and Group II control showed higher adhesion than Group I and Group III controls.

Table 4. Multiple comparisons between the groups with post hoc Tukey honest significant difference test.

Dependent variable (I) Groups (J) Groups Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig 95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Controls Group I Group II −29.2000 3.7436 0.000 −38.482 −19.918
Group III −11.4500 3.7436 0.013 −20.732 −2.168
Group II Group I 29.2000 3.7436 0.000 19.918 38.482
Group III 17.7500 3.7436 0.000 8.468 27.032
Group III Group I 11.4500 3.7436 0.013 2.168 20.732
Group II −17.7500 3.7436 0.000 −27.032 −8.468
RC I Group I Group II −27.8000 2.8535 0.000 −34.875 −20.725
Group III −8.6000 2.8535 0.015 −15.675 −1.525
Group II Group I 27.8000 2.8535 0.000 20.725 34.875
Group III 19.2000 2.8535 0.000 12.125 26.275
Group III Group I 8.6000 2.8535 0.015 1.525 15.675
Group II −19.2000 2.8535 0.000 −26.275 −12.125
RC II Group I Group II −26.3500 3.0615 0.000 −33.941 −18.759
Group III −10.1000 3.0615 0.007 −17.691 −2.509
Group II Group I 26.3500 3.0615 0.000 18.759 33.941
Group III 16.2500 3.0615 0.000 8.659 23.841
Group III Group I 10.1000 3.0615 0.007 2.509 17.691
Group II −16.2500 3.0615 0.000 −23.841 −8.659
RC III Group I Group II −25.9000 3.3292 0.000 −34.155 −17.645
Group III −9.0000 3.3292 0.031 −17.255 −745
Group II Group I 25.9000 3.3292 0.000 17.645 34.155
Group III 16.9000 3.3292 0.000 8.645 25.155
Group III Group I 9.0000 3.3292 0.031 0.745 17.255
Group II −16.9000 3.3292 0.000 −25.155 −8.645
Open in a new tab

When comparing recycling method I (RC I: flame heating and acid bath) among the groups, Group I-RC I showed significantly lesser adhesion than Group II-RC I (P = 0.000) and Group III-RC I (P = 0.015), Group III-RC I showed significantly lesser adhesion than Group II-RC I (P = 0.000) whereas more adhesion than Group I-RC I, and Group II-RC I showed significantly more adhesion than Group I-RC I and Group III-RC I.

When comparing recycling method II (RC II: ultrasonic cleaning with electropolishing) among the groups, Group I-RC II showed significantly lesser adhesion than Group II-RC II (P = 0.000 ) and Group III-RC II ( P = 0.007), Group III- RC II showed higher adhesion than Group I-RC II and lesser adhesion than Group II-RC II (P = 0.000), whereas Group II-RC II showed significantly more adhesion than Group I-RC II and Group III-RC II.

When comparing recycling method III (RC III: sandblasting and electropolishing) among the groups, Group I-RC III showed significantly lesser adhesion than Group II-RC III (P = 0.000) and Group III-RC III (P = 0.031), Group III-RC III showed higher adhesion than Group I-RC III and significantly lesser adhesion than Group II-RC III (P = 0.000), whereas Group II-RC III showed significantly higher adhesion than Group I-RC III and Group III-RC III.

In the overall comparison between groups with new and recycling methods, Group II showed higher adhesion, Group I showed lesser adhesion, whereas Group III showed intermediate adhesion between Group I and Group II.

When comparing the Streptococcus mutans adhesion within the groups, results of the ANOVA indicated there was no statistically significant difference seen (P > 0.05) (Table 5).

Table 5. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) within groups (control and recycling methods).

      Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
  Group I Between groups 234.625 3 78.208 1.939 0.141
  Within groups 1451.850 36 40.329    
  Total 1686.475 39      
  Group II Between groups 133.519 3 44.506 0.478 0.700
  Within groups 3352.425 36 93.123    
  Total 3485.944 39      
  Group III Between groups 79.569 3 26.523 1.007 0.401
  Within groups 948.525 36 26.348    
  Total 1028.094 39      
Open in a new tab

In all the groups, the comparison of Streptococcus mutans adhesion within the groups (control and recycling methods) was not statistically significant, which revealed that the recycling methods used in the study had not significantly increased the Streptococcus mutans adhesion.

Discussion

Previous studies showed that when compared to other teeth, lower second premolars showed more failure rate [23,24] because of possible moisture contamination during bonding [23,24], higher masticatory forces [23-25], larger aprismatic enamel in the premolars [23], and partially erupted second premolars at the time of bonding [1]. Hence, the lower right second premolar brackets were used in the present study.

Few of the previous studies mimicked recycled brackets by applying the adhesive at the bracket base followed by heating and burning off the same [22,23]. But this method did not ensure exact simulation of a clinical situation. To accomplish this, a cycle of bonding and debonding was performed. Dawjee and Gheevargheses [10] described the recycling method I (RC I), which was a direct flaming and acid bath technique, as a simple and quick method that effectively removed the tarnish caused by heating, thus eliminating the need for an electropolishing procedure.

However, the acid used was 32% hydrochloric acid and 55% nitric acid mixed in a 1:4 ratio. Hence, it should be handled with care [10]. According to the present study, the acid bath method of recycling showed more Streptococcus mutans adhesion in all groups of brackets than the other two methods, which involved electropolishing. This may be due to the change in the surface characteristics of the bracket after the acid bath, which requires further investigation.

In the flame heating followed by ultrasonic cleaning and electropolishing method (RC II), an earlier study by Quick et al. [7] suggested that flame heating for 10 seconds and ultrasonic cleaning for five minutes was insufficient to dislodge the residue. Hence, in our present study, the adhesives were burnt off completely for 15-20 seconds and ultrasonically cleaned for 10 minutes to dislodge the residues, followed by electropolishing to remove the tarnish caused by the heating.

Other studies suggested ultrasonic cleaning for 10 minutes followed by electropolishing for 45 seconds [9], ultrasonic cleaning for five minutes followed by electropolishing for 10 seconds [7], and sandblasting followed by electropolishing for 20 seconds [3]. However, in the present study, ultrasonic cleaning of the entire group of brackets (10 brackets) for 10 minutes followed by electropolishing for two minutes was done as per the manufacturer's recommendations given for the device used.

In the third recycling method, flame heating followed by sandblasting and electropolishing (RC III), previous studies showed that 90 µm aluminum oxide particle air abrasion at 90 PSI for 15-30 seconds was an effective method of recycling, which gave adequate bond strength [8]. However, sandblasting alone without flaming required more time to remove the adhesive, which could abrade the vulnerable undercuts. The time required for sandblasting the flamed mesh was shorter than that of removing the unburnt adhesive [7].

Earlier studies on the sandblasting method have suggested a Buchman method where brackets were flame heated for 5-10 seconds followed by sandblasting [3,6]. In the present study, flame heating was done for three to five seconds just to ignite the adhesives and sandblasted for 10-20 seconds to remove the adhesives completely. In a few earlier studies, sandblasting with 50 µm aluminum oxide particle stream at 4.5 bar pressure was used [6,7]. But this method showed lesser roughness and reduced bond strength when compared to 90 µm aluminum oxide particles stream sandblasting [8]. In the present study, the bracket base was kept at a distance of approximately 10 mm at 900 angulation causing no damage to the bracket surface [8]. Lack of electropolishing may cause corrosion due to surface roughness. To overcome this, electropolishing of the entire group of brackets was done for two minutes.

In a previous in vitro study on bacterial adhesion, Papaioannou et al. [20] assessed the whole bracket for adhesion. However, in a typical clinical situation, the bracket base adheres to the tooth surface, which will not be exposed to bacterial adhesion. Therefore, in the present study, the bracket was kept on red utility wax to prevent bacterial adhesion on the bracket base, as suggested in a study by Chen et al. [26].

Several species of bacteria are seen in the oral plaque biofilm but Streptococcus mutans was the main causative factor in enamel demineralization. Hence, Streptococcus mutans colonization was taken into consideration in the present study. In previous studies, selective medium mitis-salivarius agar was used to evaluate the Streptococcus mutans in plaque and saliva [15,27]. However, in the present study, 5% sheep blood agar, which is a nonselective medium, was used because only pure isolated strains of Streptococcus mutans (MTCC number: 497) were used.

In a few studies, metal brackets showed lower adhesion than ceramic and plastic brackets [16-18], but in contrast, other studies showed no difference in adhesion in various types of brackets [18-20]. The study results showed that the Group II brackets significantly showed more adhesion, Group I showed the least adhesion, and Group III brackets showed intermediate adhesion.

None of the recycled brackets in any of the groups showed significant results. The reason for the difference in the bacterial adhesion among the different groups could not be explained by the present study because factors like surface free energy characteristics [13,14], surface roughness [13,14], bracket material composition [13,14,28], presence of saliva to simulate oral environment [17,20], bracket design, size, and surface area of the different brackets were not assessed.

There was no statistically significant difference in Streptococcus mutans adhesion between new and recycled brackets in all three groups. This may be due to the fact that the assessment of CFUs gives only brief overall values and not the exact bacterial count. Therefore, using new advanced techniques like polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and further in vivo investigations could be considered.

Conclusions

Since there is more Streptococcus mutans adhesion seen in all the recycled brackets in comparison to the new brackets, it is indicative of a change in the surface texture of recycled brackets. The recycling methods where electropolishing was incorporated showed lesser Streptococcus mutans adhesion. Statistical insignificance may be overcome by increasing the sample size. The molecular biological level study must be done in future studies. The statistical insignificance may be related to the incubation period. Hence, further in vitro and in vivo studies should be done.

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Human Ethics

Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study

Animal Ethics

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

References

  • 1.Shearing strengths of recycled direct-bonding brackets. Mascia VE, Chen SR. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:211–216. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90141-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Biodegradation of the orthodontic bracket system. Maijer R, Smith DC. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986;90:195–198. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(86)90065-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Effects of recycling on metallic direct-bond orthodontic brackets. Buchman DJL. Am J Orthod. 1980;77:654–668. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90157-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.In vitro tensile bond strength of reconditioned brackets. Wright WL, Power JM. Am J Orthod. 1985;87:247–252. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(85)90046-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.A 12 month clinical study of bond failures of recycled versus new stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Melsen B, Scribante A. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:449–454. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.4.449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.The effects of in-office reconditioning on the morphology of slots and bases of stainless steel brackets and on the shear/peel bond strength. Basudan AM, Al-Emran SE. J Orthod. 2001;28:231–236. doi: 10.1093/ortho/28.3.231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Office reconditioning of stainless steel orthodontic attachments. Quick AN, Harris AMP, Joseph VP. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:231–236. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjh100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shear bond strength of new and recycled brackets to enamel. Tavares SW, Consani S, Nouer DF, Magnani MB, Nouer PR, Martins LM. Braz Dent J. 2006;17:44–48. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000100010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bond strength of thermally recycled metal brackets. Wheeler JJ, Ackerman RJ. Am J Orthod. 1983;83:181–186. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(83)90081-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Recycling debonded brackets with an acid bath. Dawjee S, Gheevarghese O. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15665432/ J Clin Orthod. 2004;38:605–606. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients before, during, and after orthodontic treatment. Rosenbloom RG, Tinanoff N. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;100:35–37. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70046-Y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.White spot lesions after orthodontic treatment. Willmot D. Semin Orthod. 2008;14:209–219. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Analysis of surface roughness and surface free energy characteristics of various orthodontic materials. Ahn HB, Ahn SJ, Lee SJ, Kim TW, Nahm DS. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:668–674. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Surface characteristics of orthodontic materials and their effects on adhesion of mutans streptococci. Lee SP, Lee SJ, Lim BS, Ahn SJ. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:353–360. doi: 10.2319/021308-88.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Colonization of Streptococcus mutans on esthetic brackets: self-ligating vs conventional. do Nascimento LE, Pithon MM, dos Santos RL, et al. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143:0–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to orthodontic brackets. Fournier A, Payant L, Boucli R. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114:414–417. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70186-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Quantitative determination of adhesion patterns of cariogenic streptococci to various orthodontic brackets. Ahn SJ, Lee SJ, Lim BS, Nahm DS. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:815–821. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Influence of different orthodontic brackets on adherence of microorganisms in vitro. Brusca MI, Chara O, Sterin-Borda L, Rosa AC. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:331–336. doi: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0331:IODOBO]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Microbial profile on metallic and ceramic bracket materials. Anhoury P, Nathanson D, Hughes CV, Socransky S, Feres M, Chou LL. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12169034/ Angle Orthod. 2002;72:338–343. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0338:MPOMAC>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to different types of brackets. Papaioannou W, Gizani S, Nassika M, Kontou E, Nakou M. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:1090–1095. doi: 10.2319/091706-375.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Clinical results after direct bonding of brackets using shorter etching times. Carstensen W. Am J Orthod. 1986;89:70–72. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(86)90114-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Metal ion release from new and recycled stainless steel brackets. Huang TH, Ding SJ, Min Y, Kao CT. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:171–177. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.2.171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nickel release from new conventional stainless steel, recycled, and nickel-free orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study. Sfondrini MF, Cacciafesta V, Maffia E, Scribante A, Alberti G, Biesuz R, Klersy C. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:809–815. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Zachrisson BU. Am J Orthod. 1977;71:173–189. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9416(77)90394-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bond failure with a no-mix adhesive system: an 18-month clinical review. Bherwani A, Fida M, Azam I. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:545–548. doi: 10.2319/010707-6.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of Listerine and Corsodyl on orthodontic brackets in vitro. Chen Y, Wong RW, Seneviratne CJ, Hägg U, McGrath C, Samaranayake LP. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:537–542. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.01.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Pandis N, Papaioannou W, Kontou E, Nakou M, Makou M, Eliades T. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32:94–99. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Quantitative analysis of adhesion of cariogenic streptococci to orthodontic raw materials. Lim BS, Lee SJ, Lee JW, Ahn SJ. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:882–888. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.07.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.

RESOURCES