• Users Online: 216
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
   Table of Contents      
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 41-46

Antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system versus conventional one in reducing demineralization of the enamel around orthodontic brackets: A split-mouth study


Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Dakahlia, Egypt

Date of Submission20-Aug-2018
Date of Acceptance20-Jan-2019
Date of Web Publication12-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Eqbal Nasser Aqeel
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Dakahlia
Egypt
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/bijo.bijo_1_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the efficiency of an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive in the reduction of white-spot lesions (WSLs) around orthodontic brackets (in vivo) in comparison to the conventional adhesive systems.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on twenty patients, provided that they required the extraction of the maxillary first premolars as part of their orthodontic treatment plan. This involved only on the maxillary first bicuspids (n = 40) and the left maxillary first premolars represented the control side (n = 20) where the metal brackets (3M, Unitek™ Gemini) were bonded to that side using Transbond XT light cure adhesive (3M, Unitek). Meanwhile, the right side represented the experimental one (n = 20) and the brackets were bonded to them using Clearfil SE protect (Kuraray). After 3 months, both teeth were extracted and examined by both the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to assess the calcium and phosphorus atomic percentages were assessed in the area surrounding the bracket by and the scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the morphology and crystalline structure of the tooth surfaces.
Results: A significant difference between the antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive and the conventional adhesive system in the prevention of the WSLs formation was evident in the study. Moreover, the difference in the enamel surface morphology was noted.
Conclusions: Antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive can minimize demineralization around the metal brackets (in vivo) compared to the conventional one after a period of 3 months.

Keywords: Antibacterial adhesive system, enamel demineralization, orthodontic brackets


How to cite this article:
Aqeel EN, Shamaa MS, El-Bialy AA. Antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system versus conventional one in reducing demineralization of the enamel around orthodontic brackets: A split-mouth study. Albasar Int J Ophthalmol 2018;5:41-6

How to cite this URL:
Aqeel EN, Shamaa MS, El-Bialy AA. Antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system versus conventional one in reducing demineralization of the enamel around orthodontic brackets: A split-mouth study. Albasar Int J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2021 May 12];5:41-6. Available from: https://www.bijojournal.org/text.asp?2018/5/2/41/289598




  Introduction Top


White-spot lesions (WSLs) are considered one of the most prominent hazardous effects commonly associated with fixed orthodontic brackets. This complication not only compromises dental health but also affects the overall orthodontic treatment results as well as the level of patient satisfaction.[1],[2] It was proved that the accumulation of the bacterial plaque was readily increased after brackets fixation, particularly the acidogenic one (Streptococcus mutans). Along with inadequate oral hygiene, the incidence rate of WSLs ranges from 11% to 46%.[3],[4] When the fermentable carbohydrates are high enough in the meals, the bacteria will flourish and produce more acid that leads to decreasing the plaque pH. Once the pH becomes less than the threshold of re-mineralization, carious demineralization occurs. Thus, the fixed orthodontic appliances accelerate the occurrence of dental plaque and decrease the oral pH.[5],[6]

Proper oral hygiene measures together with daily gargle using fluoride mouthwash can fairly cause some degree of inhibition in decalcification.[7],[8] The cariostatic action of topical fluoride therapy comes essentially from the formation of calcium fluoride.[6] Unfortunately, these measures completely depend on patient collaboration, which is not sufficient enough in the prevention of plaque accumulation and demineralization of the enamel surface.[9]

Consequently, the need for adhesive systems decreasing the occurrence of WSLs was raised among orthodontists. Thus, the appearance of fluoride-releasing adhesive systems for the fixation of brackets attracted general attention. It was thought that wherever the fluoride delivery was proximal to the bracket–enamel interface, less need for patient cooperation was critical.[10],[11] Nonetheless, the capacity of these systems to decrease the formation of WSLs practically remained doubtful.[10],[11],[12] Although recalcification by the discharge of fluoride was important, the use of antibacterial agents was considered more crucial as a direct way in inhibition of the bacteria causing dental caries.[13] Antimicrobial agents such as chlorhexidine have been proposed to restrain demineralization produced by bacterial colonies in plaque accumulation around the orthodontic brackets at these conditions.[14],[15],[16]

Currently, bioactive adhesive systems with antibacterial actions or strong remineralization potency are regarded as an effective mean of generating superior clinical achievements.[14] Lately, an antibacterial fluoride-releasing bonding agent has been promoted by combining the physical benefits of dental-adhesive properties and the antibacterial action.[17],[18] Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive in reducing the enamel demineralization around the orthodontic brackets compared to the conventional adhesive systems.


  Materials and Methods Top


Twenty patients were enrolled in this study with a age range of 13–18 years old, provided that each was scheduled to have their upper first premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes. The study candidates were then informed about the study procedure and informed consent was obtained from each. They were then referred to the department of periodontology to receive the necessary oral hygiene measures and instructions to promote good oral hygiene.

Split-mouth design was used where the left maxillary first premolar of each participating candidate served as the control side. Here, the buccal surfaces of the upper left first premolars were cleaned by rubber cup and pumice, etched for 15 s, rinsed with water, and air-dried. Transbond XT primer was placed and cured for 10 s, followed by placement of the metal brackets (Gemini, 3M/Unitek) which were bonded to these teeth using Transbond XT light cure adhesive (3M Unitek). The right maxillary first premolar served as the experimental one. The buccal surfaces were also cleaned with pumice, etched for15 s, and dried with air. After that, Clearfil SE protect primer was placed and cured for 20 s, and an additional step was required: the Clearfil Bond was applied and cured for 10 s, after which the metal brackets (Gemini, 3M/Unitek) were bonded to these teeth by Clearfil SE protect (Kuraray) [Figure 1]. Oral hygiene instructions were emphasized on the patients; they were advised to brush twice daily.
Figure 1: (a) Photographs showing orthodontic procedures for bracket bonding on the right side; application of Clearfil SE Protect monomer, (b) application of Clearfil Protect bond on the right side, (c) light curing for 10 s, (d) fixing of the bracket on teeth by Transbond XT adhesive, (e) light curing for 20 s, (f) Meanwhile, on the left side, Transbond XT primer applied to the etched surfaces, (g) light curing for 10 s on the left side, (h) fixing of the bracket on teeth by Transbond XT adhesive, (i) light curing for 20 s

Click here to view


After 3 months, both right and left upper first premolars were extracted, cleaned, and saved in bottles of normal saline. They were sent for assessment by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) (JEOL JSM 6510lv). The EDX detector system used in this study was for both qualitative and quantitative microanalyses. This detector is considered the third generation which is faster than Si (Li) conventional and does not require cooling with liquid nitrogen. It passes the X-rays through the window of radiation before entering the detector active volume and has high-resolution spectra that calculate the concentration of the main elements in weight percentage. This is the only analysis that uses this type of detector. It also uses the attached backscattered electron collector to a scanning electron microscope.

Both EDX and SEM were used in this study to measure the percentage of the calcium and phosphorus around the orthodontic brackets, the morphology, crystalline structure, and orientation of the tooth surfaces. Thus, the difference between the antibacterial and conventional adhesive systems in reducing enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets was determined.

Statistical analysis

Data were fed to the computer and analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0 (Chicago: SPSS Inc; IL, USA). Qualitative data were described using numbers and percentage, while quantitative data were described using median (minimum and maximum), mean, and standard deviation. The normality of data was first tested using one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used for nonparametric quantitative variables to compare between thr two studied groups. Significance was determined at P < 0.05.


  Results Top


Mann–Whitney U-test was used to make comparison between the study group (Clearfil SE protect) and the control group (Transbond XT light cure adhesive) regarding the calcium and phosphorus atomic percentage. The atomic percentage is defined as the number of moles of one component divided by the number of moles of all components multiplied by 100 [Figure 2] and [Figure 3]. It showed a high statistically significant difference between study and control groups with the higher median values in the study than in control groups (P < 0.05) [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Figure 2: Percentage of the minerals around orthodontic brackets

Click here to view
Figure 3: Percentage of the minerals around orthodontic brackets

Click here to view
Table 1: Comparison between the median of the study and control regarding the calcium atomic % (P <0.05)

Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison between the median of study and control regarding the phosphorus atomic (%) (P <0.05)

Click here to view


SEM examination of enamel surfaces adjacent to orthodontic brackets at × 3000 magnification revealed an evident difference between the study and control groups. The enamel surface of the study group (Clearfil SE protect) appeared relatively regular and smooth [Figure 4], while the enamel surface of the control group (Transbond XT) appeared rough, irregular, and very small, and discontinuous depressions of different depths were found with partial removal of the aprismatic layer [Figure 5].
Figure 4: Scanning electron microscopy photograph of the enamel surface of the study group (Clearfil SE protect)

Click here to view
Figure 5: Scanning electron microscopy photograph of the enamel surface of the control group (Transbond XT)

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The WSLs are one of the greatest challenges that face any orthodontist; therefore, many attempts were made to reduce demineralization and WSL development during the period of orthodontic treatment. The formation of biofilm around fixed appliances in addition to poor oral hygiene is the main cause of WSLs.[3],[4] Furthermore, after bracket bonding, the oral colonization of S. mutans was exacerbated.[19] Therefore, to prevent or minimize these lesions, the orthodontic adhesive should have a capability to inhibit the bacterial growth.[20] The incorporation of antibacterial agents, fluoride, or casein phosphopeptide–amorphous calcium phosphate with adhesive systems can reduce demineralization around the brackets.[9],[21],[22],[23]

Recently, the dental market has new self-etching adhesive system that contains fluoride and antibacterial agents.[24],[25] The attainment of an antibacterial adhesive system was done by the addition of the 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB), which is a new monomer that has a powerful bactericidal activity against oral bacteria. According to the outcomes of that study, a new single-bottled 5% MDPB-containing primer was progressing. This new adhesive agent has an antibacterial activity in addition to fluoride-releasing property, commercially it is known as Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray).[26]

This bond was expected to remain stable for a long time in clinical service. It was predicted that an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive will be efficient in impeding the invasion of microbes,[26] although it requires a little more chair time for bonding the orthodontic brackets compared to the conventional systems.

The influence of several preventive materials in decreasing the demineralization of enamel was confirmed by many in vitro and in vivo studies. The in vivo study design has various advantages: the formation of caries and WSLs is evaluated in vital teeth and the adhesive agent is tested in the oral environment. In the current study, the influence of the antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive on demineralization was studied inside the patient's mouth using a split-mouth design in which one side of the mouth is a control side and the other is the study one. The number of the patients was twenty; thus, we had twenty upper right first premolars as a study group (Clearfil SE protect bond) and twenty upper lift first premolars as a control group (Transbond XT).

In the past, the cross-sectional microhardness was used to assess the mineral loss as an evaluation method, while in this study, the demineralization was evaluated using EDX that investigated the alterations in chemical composition (elements quantities) in the enamel and SEM that revealed the structural changes in the enamel surface after fixed orthodontic treatment.[27]

This research showed a highly statistically significant difference between antibacterial MDPB-containing adhesive and conventional adhesive systems regarding the calcium and phosphorus atomic percentage. The concentration of these two minerals (that perform the basic elements of tooth enamel) was higher in the study (Clearfil SE protect bond) than the control (Transbond XT) group. Thus, more demineralization was detected in the control group. This means that the antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system was more efficient in reducing the development of the WSLs. This is in agreement with the previous studies, like Uysal et al.[26] that used microhardness analysis for comparing between Clearfil SE protect bond and Transbond XT and detected the development of a thin caries lesion around the brackets, with significant differences (P < 0.05) between the two adhesives up to the 50-μm depth of the enamel surface. Superficial lesion depths were detected around the brackets bonded with the Clearfil SE protect compared with the Transbond XT.

This study crossed over a disadvantage of the previous study that had a limited period of 1 month; thus, we increased the experimental period to 3 months to give sufficient time for evaluating the efficiency of this adhesive in reducing the formation of the WSLs.

SEM examination of enamel surfaces adjacent to the orthodontic bracket showed that there were more significant alterations in the enamel surface microstructure and morphology after fixed orthodontic treatment in the Transbond XT than that in the Clearfil SE protects. In the control group, the enamel surface appeared rough and irregular with very small, discontinuous depressions of several depths and partial removal of the layer of the aprismatic enamel layer has occurred, while the enamel surface of the study group appeared relatively smooth and regular with less depression. Thereby, the Clearfil SE protect is not only antimicrobial but also fluoride-releasing agent which renders it as more protective than Transbond XT against enamel demineralization. This was in consistency with Basdra et al.[28] who used SEM for assessment of the fluoride-releasing orthodontic agents. The results of that in vitro study showed that certain fluoride-releasing orthodontic bonding systems may provide an additional degree of safety against caries susceptibility in patients with fixed appliances for a limited period.


  Conclusions Top


The antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive has a significant effect in decreasing the enamel demineralization around fixed orthodontic appliances in vivo after 3 months in comparison with the conventional adhesive systems. The antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive (Clearfil SE protect) needs more chair time for bonding the orthodontic brackets compared to the conventional system that is less time consuming.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Øgaard B. Prevalence of white spot lesions in 19-year-old: A study on untreated and orthodontically treated persons 5 years after treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:423-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Nunn JH, Ekanayake L, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Saparamadu KD. Assessment of enamel opacities in children in Sri Lanka and England using a photographic method. Community Dent Health 1993;10:175-88.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bishara SE, Ostby AW. White Spot Lesions: Formation, Prevention, and Treatment. Seminars in Orthodontics. USA: Elsevier; 2008. p. 174-82.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Enaia M, Bock N, Ruf S. White-spot lesions during multibracket appliance treatment: A challenge for clinical excellence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e17-24.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ogaard B, Rølla G, Arends J, ten Cate JM. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part 2. Prevention and treatment of lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:123-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Geiger AM, Gorelick L, Gwinnett AJ, Benson BJ. Reducing white spot lesions in orthodontic populations with fluoride rinsing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:403-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
James JW, Miller BH, English JD, Tadlock LP, Buschang PH. Effects of high-speed curing devices on shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:555-61.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Boyd RL. Comparison of three self-applied topical fluoride preparations for control of decalcification. Angle Orthod 1993;63:25-30.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Bishara SE, Soliman M, Laffoon J, Warren JJ. Effect of antimicrobial monomer-containing adhesive on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2005;75:397-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Wenderoth CJ, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ. Effectiveness of a fluoride-releasing sealant in reducing decalcification during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:629-34.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Eminkahyagil N, Korkmaz Y, Gokalp S, Baseren M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with newly developed antibacterial self-etch adhesive. Angle Orthod 2005;75:843-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod 1982;81:93-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Mizrahi E. Enamel demineralization following orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1982;82:62-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Corbett JA, Brown LR, Keene HJ, Horton IM. Comparison of Streptococcus mutans concentrations in non-banded and banded orthodontic patients. J Dent Res 1981;60:1936-42.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Artun J, Brobakken BO. Prevalence of carious white spots after orthodontic treatment with multibonded appliances. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:229-34.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Kukleva MP, Shetkova DG, Beev VH. Comparative age study of the risk of demineralization during orthodontic treatment with brackets. Folia Med (Plovdiv) 2002;44:56-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Millett DT, Nunn JH, Welbury RR, Gordon PH. Decalcification in relation to brackets bonded with glass ionomer cement or a resin adhesive. Angle Orthod 1999;69:65-70.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Derks A, Katsaros C, Frencken JE, van't Hof MA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Caries-inhibiting effect of preventive measures during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. A systematic review. Caries Res 2004;38:413-20.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Mattingly JA, Sauer GJ, Yancey JM, Arnold RR. Enhancement of Streptococcus mutans colonization by direct bonded orthodontic appliances. J Dent Res 1983;62:1209-11.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Altmann AS, Collares FM, Ogliari FA, Samuel SM. Effect of methacrylated-based antibacterial monomer on orthodontic adhesive system properties. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147:S82-7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Øgaard B, Larsson E, Henriksson T, Birkhed D, Bishara SE. Effects of combined application of antimicrobial and fluoride varnishes in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:28-35.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Kawashima M, Nakatsuka K, Okada K, Yamauchi J. Characteristics of a new antibacterial and fluoride releasing bonding system. J Dent Res 2002;81: A-241.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ulker M, Uysal T, Ramoglu SI, Ucar FI. Bond strengths of an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system applied with and without acid etching for lingual retainer bonding. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:658-63.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Imazato S, Torii M, Tsuchitani Y, McCabe JF, Russell RR. Incorporation of bacterial inhibitor into resin composite. J Dent Res 1994;73:1437-43.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Imazato S, Kuramoto A, Takahashi Y, Ebisu S, Peters MC.In vitro antibacterial effects of the dentin primer of clearfil protect bond. Dent Mater 2006;22:527-32.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Uysal T, Amasyali M, Ozcan S, Koyuturk AE, Sagdic D. Effect of antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive on enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets: An in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:650-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Melo MAS, Morais WA, Passos VF, Lima JPM, Rodrigues LKA. Fluoride releasing and enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets by fluoride-releasing composite containing nanoparticles. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1343-50.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Basdra EK, Huber H, Komposch G. Fluoride released from orthodontic bonding agents alters the enamel surface and inhibits enamel demineralization in vitro. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:466-72.  Back to cited text no. 28
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed658    
    Printed48    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded6    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal