Changes in the oral environment after placement of lingual and labial orthodontic appliances

Luca Lombardo, Yildiz Öztürk Ortan, Özge Gorgun, Chiara Panza, Giuseppe Scuzzo, Giuseppe Siciliani, Luca Lombardo, Yildiz Öztürk Ortan, Özge Gorgun, Chiara Panza, Giuseppe Scuzzo, Giuseppe Siciliani

Abstract

Background: This study compared the oral hygiene and caries risk of patients treated with labial and lingual orthodontic appliances throughout a prospective evaluation of the status of the oral environment before and after bracket placement.

Methods: A total of 20 orthodontic patients aged 19 to 23 years were included in the study and were divided into two groups: 10 patients wore Roth labial appliance (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA) and 10 patients wore STb lingual appliance (Ormco Corporation, Glendora, CA, USA). Plaque index (PI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), salivary flow rate, saliva buffer capacity, salivary pH, and Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus counts in saliva were determined at three time points: before orthodontic appliance placement (T0), 4 weeks after bonding (T1), and 8 weeks after bonding (T2). After appliance placement, all patients were periodically educated to the oral hygiene procedures. Wilcoxon rank and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine intragroup and intergroup differences as regards qualitative data. To compare quantitative data between the groups, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were undertaken, while intragroup differences were tested with McNemar test. The level of statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results: Statistical analysis of the data obtained revealed a statistically significant difference between the data of T0 and T1 and the data of T0 and T2 of the PI scores and between T0 and T2 of the GBI scores in the group treated with the lingual appliance. The GBI value increased significantly between T0 and T1 but decreased significantly between T1 and T2 (p<0.01) in the group treated with labial appliance. S. mutans counts increased significantly between T0 and T2 in the saliva samples of patients treated with lingual appliance. No statistically significant differences were found between S. mutans and Lactobacillus counts at the three terms of saliva collection in patients treated with labial appliance. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups at the three time points as regards the salivary flow rate and saliva buffer capacity.

Conclusions: Lingual and labial orthodontic appliances showed a different potential in modifying the investigated clinical parameters: patients wearing STb lingual orthodontic appliance had more plaque retention 4 and 8 weeks after bonding, while there were more gingival inflammation and more S. mutans counts 8 weeks after bonding. No differences were found between the two groups as regards the Lactobacillus counts, the salivary flow rate, and saliva buffer capacity.

References

    1. Fujita K. New orthodontic treatment with lingual bracket and mushroom arch wire appliance. Am J Orthod. 1979;76:657–75. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90211-2.
    1. Sandham JA. Orthodontic treatment with lingually bonded brackets. Br J Orthod. 1984;11:189–94.
    1. van der Veen MH, Attin R, Schwestka-Polly R, Wiechmann D. Caries outcomes after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances: do lingual brackets make a difference? Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118:298–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00733.x.
    1. Cunha-Cruz J, Bakko DW, Huang GJ, Hujoel PP. The effects of orthodontic therapy on periodontal health: a systematic review of controlled evidence. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139:413–22.
    1. Yun-Wah Lau P, Wing-Kit WR. Risks and complications in orthodontic treatment. Hong Kong Dent J. 2006;3:15–22.
    1. Bollen AM, Cunha-Cruz J, Bakko DW, Huang GJ, Hujoel PP. The effects of orthodontic therapy on periodontal health: a systematic review of controlled evidence. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139:413–22.
    1. Chang HS, Walsh LJ, Freer TJ. Enamel demineralization during orthodontic treatment. Aetiology and prevention. Aust Dent J. 1997;42:322–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1997.tb00138.x.
    1. Kvam E. Adverse effects of orthodontic treatment. In: Thilander B, Rönning O, editors. Introduction to orthodontics. 2. Karlshamn: Gothia; 1995. pp. 195–208.
    1. O'Reilly M, Featherstone J. Demineralisation and remineralisation around orthodontic appliances - an in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;92:33–40. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90293-9.
    1. Øgaard B, Rolla G, Arends J. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;94:68–73. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90453-2.
    1. Travess H, Roberts-Harry D, Sandy J. Orthodontics. Part 6: risks in orthodontic treatment. Br Dent J. 2004;196:71–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810891.
    1. Jensen B, Bratthall D. A new method for the estimation of Streptococci mutans in human saliva. J Dent Res. 1989;68:468–71. doi: 10.1177/00220345890680030601.
    1. Larmas M. Saliva and dental caries: diagnostic tests for normal dental practice. Int Dent J. 1992;42:199–208.
    1. Varma S, Banerjee A, Bartlett D. An in vivo investigation of associations between saliva properties, caries prevalence and potential lesion activity in an adult UK population. J Dent. 2008;36:294–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.01.009.
    1. Nishimura M, Oda T, Kariya N, Matsumura S, Shimono T. Using a caries activity test to predict caries risk in early childhood. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139:63–71.
    1. Brusca MI, Chara O, Sterin-Borda L, Rosa AC. Influence of different orthodontic brackets on adherence of microorganisms in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:2. doi: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0331:IODOBO];2.
    1. Al Mulla AH, Al Kharsa S, Kjellberg H, Birkhed D. Caries risk profiles in orthodontic patients at follow-up using cariogram. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(2):323–30. doi: 10.2319/012708-47.1.
    1. Lara-Carrillo E, Montiel-Bastida N-M, Sánchez-Pérez L, Alanís-Tavira J. Effect of orthodontic treatment on saliva, plaque and the levels of Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010;15:924–9. doi: 10.4317/medoral.15.e924.
    1. Vanarsdall RL. Complications of orthodontic treatment. Curr Opin Dent. 1991;1:622–33.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp033.
    1. Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod. 1982;81:93–8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90032-X.
    1. 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;23:474–84. doi: 10.1093/ejo/23.5.475.
    1. Sakamaki SK, Bahn AN. Effect of orthodontic banding on localized oral Lactobacilli. J Dent Res. 1968;47:2. doi: 10.1177/00220345680470021301.
    1. Attin R, Thoun C, Schlagenhauf U, Wiegand A, Hannong C, Attin T. Recolonization of Streptococci mutans on teeth with orthodontic appliances after antimicrobial therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:489–93. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji018.
    1. Rosenbloom RG, Tinanoff N. Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients before, during and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;100:35–7. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70046-Y.
    1. Hohoff A, Fillion D, Stamm T, Goder G, Sauerland C, Ehmer U. Oral comfort, function and hygiene in patients with lingual brackets. J Orofac Orthop. 2003;64:359–71. doi: 10.1007/s00056-003-0307-6.
    1. Fujita K. Multilingual bracket and mushroom archwire technique. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(2):120–140. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90491-2.
    1. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K. Invisible orthodontics. Berlin: Quintessenz Verbags-GmbH; 2003.
    1. Miyawaki S, Yasuhara M, Koh Y. Discomfort caused by bonded lingual orthodontic appliances in adult patients as examined by retrospective questionnaire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;114:83–8. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70320-3.
    1. Miethke RR, Brauner K. A comparison of the periodontal health of patients during treatment with the Invisalign system and with fixed lingual appliances. J Orofac Orthop. 2007;68:223–31. doi: 10.1007/s00056-007-0655-8.
    1. Sinclair PM, Cannito MF, Goates LJ, Solomos LF, Alexander CM. Patient responses to lingual appliance. J Clin Orthod. 1986;20(6):396–404.
    1. Artun JA. A post-treatment evaluation of multibonded lingual appliances in lingual orthodontics. Eur J Orthod. 1987;9:204–10. doi: 10.1093/ejo/9.3.204.
    1. Caniklioglu C, Ozturk Y. Patient discomfort: a comparison between lingual and labial fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:86–91.
    1. Stamm T, Hohoff A, Ehmer U. A subjective comparison of two lingual bracket systems. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:420–6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji034.
    1. Bass CC. An effective method of personal oral hygiene. J La State Med Soc. 1954;106(2):57–73.
    1. World Health Organization . A guide to oral health: epidemiological investigations. Geneva: Oral Health Unit WHO; 1979.
    1. Ainamo J, Bay I. Problems and proposals for recordings gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J. 1957;25:229–35.
    1. Dahlén G, Pipattanagovit P, Rosling B, Möller ÅJ. A comparison of two transport media for saliva and subgingival samples. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1993;8:375–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.1993.tb00614.x.
    1. Gold OG, Jordan HV, Van Houte J. A selective medium for Streptococcus mutans. Arch Oral Biol. 1973;18:1357–64. doi: 10.1016/0003-9969(73)90109-X.
    1. Rogosa M, Mitchell JA, Wiseman RF. A selective medium for the isolation and enumeration of oral and fecal Lactobacilli. J Bacteriol. 1951;62:132–3.
    1. Fritz U, Diedrich P, Wiechmann D. Lingual technique—patients’ characteristics, motivation and acceptance. J Orofac Orthop. 2002;63:227–33. doi: 10.1007/s00056-002-0124-3.
    1. Hohoff A, Wiechmann D, Fillion D, Stamm T, Lippold C, Ehmer U. Evaluation of the parameters underlying the decision by adult patients to opt for lingual therapy: an international comparison. J Orofac Orthop. 2003;64:135–44. doi: 10.1007/s00056-003-0217-7.
    1. Paolantonio M, Festa F, di Placido G, D'Attilio M, Catamo G, Piccolomini R. Site-specific subgingival colonization by Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115:423–8. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70263-5.
    1. Demling A, Demling C, Schwestka-Polly R, Stiesch M, Heuer W. Short-term influence of lingual orthodontic therapy on microbial parameters and periodontal status—a preliminary study. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:480–4. doi: 10.2319/061109-330.1.
    1. Stadelmann P, Zemp E, Weiss C, Weiger R, Menghini G, Zitzmann NU. Dental visits, oral hygiene behaviour, and orthodontic treatment in Switzerland. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2012;122(2):104–26.
    1. Löe H. Human research model for the production and prevention of gingivitis. J Dent Res. 1971;50:256–65. doi: 10.1177/00220345710500021701.
    1. Acharya S, Goyal A, Utreja AK, Mohanty U. Effect of three different motivational techniques on oral hygiene and gingival health of patients undergoing multibracketed orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 2011;81:884–8. doi: 10.2319/112210-680.1.
    1. Richter AES, Arruda AO, Peters MC, Sohn W. Incidence of caries lesions among patients treated with comprehensive orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:657–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.037.
    1. Guzmán-Armstrong S, Chalmers J, Warren JJ. Ask us. White spot lesions: prevention and treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:690–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.007.
    1. Delsol L, Bousquet P. Orthodontic treatment of gingival recession: indications. Orthod Fr. 2011;82:269–78. doi: 10.1051/orthodfr/2011132.
    1. MacPherson LMD, MacFarlane TW, Geddes DAM, Stephen KW. Assessment of the cariogenic potential of Streptococcus mutans and its relationship to in vivo caries experience. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1992;7:142–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-302X.1992.tb00527.x.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅