Адгезия Streptococcus mutans к лигатурным и самолигируемым брекетам: лабораторное исследование

Введение: хотя предполагается, что самолигируемые брекеты обеспечивают лучшие условия гигиены, до сих пор не достигнута единая точка зрения. Целью данного исследования было оценить, адгезию Streptococcus mutans (SM) к самолигируемым и лигатурным брекетам различных производителей и типов лигатур. Методы: были протестированы две коммерческих марки металлических брекет-систем для верхних премоляров («Damon 3» Ormco® и «In-Ovation» GAC®). Каждая из них была разделена на три группы, которые различались типом лигатуры (стальной и эластомерной) и моделью брекета (металлической, самолигируемой), в общей сложности получилось шесть групп по шесть брекетов в каждой. Предварительно стерилизованные брекеты были погружены в слюну на один час, затем промыты и добавлены в бактериальную суспензию, содержащуюся в аэробных условиях в течение 72 часов (3 суток). Затем прилипшие бактерии были отделены и подсчитаны по числу колоний (CFU/mL) после 48 часов роста. Группы сравнивали с помощью критериев Краскала – Уоллиса (p <0,05). Результаты: независимо от марки производителя, самолигируемые брекеты показали значительно меньшее количество колоний микроорганизмов Кое/мл. Среди сравниваемых моделей самолигируемых брекетов «In-Ovation» GAC® показали наибольший уровень бактериальной адгезии. Выводы: cамолигируемые брекеты, скорее всего, демонстрируют меньшие показатели адгезии биопленки по сравнению с лигатурными брекетами. Особенно это относится к брекетам «Damon 3» Ormco®, которые менее склонны к накоплению биопленки, что важно знать для практики ортодонтии.

1. Feres, Murilo Fernando Neuppmann, et al. Streptococcus mutans adherence to conventional and self-ligating brackets: an in vitro study. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 26 (2021): e212019.

2. Tripathi, Vartika, et al. Comparative study of microbial adhesion on different orthodontic brackets-an in vivo study. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences 15. Suppl. 2 (2023): S1270-S1273.

3. Abutayyem, Huda, et al. Microbial adhesion on different types of orthodontic brackets and wires: an in vitro study. The Saudi Dental Journal 36.11 (2024): 1459-1465.

4. Parmar, Nidhi P., et al. Microbial colonisation associated with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a systematic review. Journal of Orthodontics 49.2 (2022): 151–162.

5. Al-okbi Mustafa Azhar, et al. Plaque deposition around conventional and self-ligating brackets in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Medical Science [Internet] 26 (2022).

6. Hempel Souper, Germán, et al. Evidence-based comparison of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Odontoestomatología 23.38 (2021).

7. Patni, Vedant, et al. An In-Vitro Evaluation of Microbial Adhesion on Different Types of Orthodontic Brackets. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research 15.6 (2021).

8. Mester, Alexandru, Florin Onisor, and Anca Stefania Mesaros. Periodontal health in patients with self-ligating brackets: a systematic review of clinical studies. Journal of clinical medicine 11.9 (2022): 2570.

9. Skilbeck, Michael G., et al. The effect of ligation methods on biofilm formation in patients undergoing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic therapy–A systematic review. Orthodontics & craniofacial research 25.1 (2022):14–30.

10. Nassar, Essam Abdelalim, et al. An evaluation of microbial flora, alkaline phosphatase and IL-8 levels in GCF of orthodontic patients with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry (2021): 343–352.

11. Raszl, Patrícia, et al. Influence of the type of bracket on microbial colonization and gengival clinical condition: study randomized clinical trial. Revista Univap 31.71 (2025).

12. Gonçalves, Caroline Gabriela, et al. Biofilm and clinical data between volunteers with self-ligating and conventional brackets: an observational study. Revista Prevenção de Infecção e Saúde 9.1 (2023).

13. Arora, Manvi A., Shah Alap, and Somani Dhaval. Self-Ligating Versus Conventional Brackets: A Narrative Review. Cureus 17.3 (2025).

14. Kumar, Nihanth. Streptococcus mutans Adhesion: A Controlled In vitro Investigation Using Bracket and Composite Material in Relation to Saliva pH. Indo-American Journal of Life Sciences and Biotechnology 22.2 (2025):23–28.

15. Naveed, Niha, and Kannan Sabapathy. Biological Response of Self-Ligation Bracket Systems. (2024).

16. Cota-Quintero, Juan, et al. Dysbiotic changes of periodontal pathogens in patients wearing conventional and self-ligating orthodontic appliances. Aust Orthod J 39.1 (2023):61–71.

17. Cernei, Eduard Radu, et al. Passive Self-Ligating Bracket Systems: A Scoping Review of Their Claims Regarding Efficiency and Effectiveness in Orthodontic Treatment. Applied Sciences 13.10 (2023): 6322.

18. Idris, Mohammad I., et al. White spot lesion in self-ligating versus conventional ligating bracket systems: A systematic review. Journal of International Medical Research 53.4 (2025): 03000605251328608.

19. Alhuwaizi, Malak Akram Faisal, and Hayder Fadhil Saloom. Conventional Versus Self-Ligating Brackets. (2022).

20. Dragomirescu, Anca-Oana, et al. Reducing friction in orthodontic brackets: A matter of material or type of ligation selection? in-vitro comparative study. Materials 15.7 (2022): 2640.

21. Zawawi, Rahaf, and Naif Almosa. Assessment of enamel demineralization following the use of different orthodontic bracket materials, etchants, and adhesive systems: an in vitro study. Journal of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering 13.7 (2023):837–847.

22. Eskandari, Fateme, et al. Sustained antibacterial activity of orthodontic elastomeric ligature ties coated with a novel kombucha-derived bacterial nanocellulose: An in-vitro study. Plos one 19.2 (2024): e0292966.

23. Hussain, Umar, et al. Influence of elastomeric and steel ligatures on periodontal health during fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Progress in Orthodontics 25.1 (2024):24.

24. Ahuja, Dhruv, et al. In vitro determination of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity induced by stainless steel brackets with and without surface coating in cultures of oral mucosal cells. BMC Oral Health 24.1 (2024):1233.

25. Belvirdy, Leila Mohammadpour, et al. Comparison of Streptococcus mutans adhesion with different concentrations in artificial saliva to fixed orthodontic materials in laboratory conditions. Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal (BBRJ) 8.4 (2024):428–433.

26. Bachiega Morelli, Raquel Fernanda, et al. Microbial contamination profile on esthetic elastomeric ligatures through the checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridization technique: A randomized split-mouth study. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/ Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 85. Suppl 2 (2024):155–164.

27. Fernandes, Ellen Eduarda, et al. Analysis of biofilm formation by Candida albicans in different types of orthodontic fixed appliances and devices. Brazilian Dental Science 26.2 (2023).

28. Toz Ertop, Melis, et al. Evaluation of the demineralization development around different types of orthodontic brackets. Materials 16.3 (2023):984.

29. Thiruvengadam, Vasumathi, et al. Comparison of Streptococcus mutans Adhesion on New and Recycled Metal Brackets: An In Vitro Study. Cureus 14.3 (2022).

30. Toz Ertop, M., et al. Evaluation of the Demineralization Development around Different Types of Orthodontic Brackets. Materials 2023, 16, 984. 2023.

31. Yadav, Sweta, et al. Periodontal and microbiological evaluation in cleft lip/palate patients undergoing orthodontic treatment: An in vitro study. Bioinformation 21.5 (2025):1286.