ArticleBMC oral health2024
Biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguinis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus casei, and Candida Albicans on 5 thermoform and 3D printed orthodontic clear aligner and retainer materials at 3 time points: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Not so innocent: Environmental Klebsiella pneumoniae disseminating resistance and virulence via conjugation.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Assessment of biofilm resistance, degree of conversion, and mechanical properties of nanomodified 3D-printed orthodontic clear aligner (in-vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Functionalization of a Shape-Memory 3D-Printed Clear Aligner Resin with Silanized Chitosan Nanoparticles: Antibacterial, Optical, Polymerization, and Mechanical Evaluation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Assessment of microbial growth in various aligner materials.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Health and environmental hazards of shape memory polymer used in orthodontic aligners - a scoping review.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Review
- Structural Stability of Silicone-Based Elastodontic Appliances After Clinical Use: Insights from FTIR Spectroscopy.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of platelet-rich plasma under different activation conditions against multidrug-resistant MRSA isolated from human skin abscesses.BMC biotechnology · 2025Article
- Virulence factors and therapeutic methods ofVirulence · 2025Review
- Metabolomic and metagenomic analyses reveal distinct microenvironmental signatures between clear aligner-associated and tooth surface dental plaque.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effect of Surface Wettability and Energy on Bacterial Adhesion to Dental Aligners: A Comparative In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Time-dependent microbiome dynamics in orthodontic thermoplastic materials: comparing PETG and TPU.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Additive Manufacturing, Thermoplastics, CAD Technology, and Reverse Engineering in Orthopedics and Neurosurgery-Applications to Preventions and Treatment of Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Impact of various cleaning protocols on the physical and aesthetic properties of 3D-printed orthodontic aligners.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Biofilm Composition Changes During Orthodontic Clear Aligners Compared to Multibracket Appliances: A Systematic Review.Microorganisms · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOrthodontic clear aligners and retainers have numerous advantages that is making them ever increasingly popular. However, they might, similar to any other oral appliance, contribute to biofilm formation and finally dental caries or white spot lesions or gingival inflammations. The literature on biofilm formation on orthodontic clear appliances is very scarce and limited to a few microorganisms and materials. Therefore, this experimental study evaluated the biofilm formation on 5 thermoformed and 3D printed CAD/CAM orthodontic retainers in 3 intervals.
methodsIn this in vitro study, 345 specimens (270 test discs and 45 negative controls) were created from fabricated retainers. Retainers included a 3D printed CAD/CAM material (Detax) and four thermoformed retainers [Erkodent (polyethylene terephthalate glycol [PETG]); EasyVac (polyethylene); DB (polyester based on terephthalic acid); and Clear Tech]. They were all 1 mm thick, and all completely fabricated, i.e., heated or printed. The discs were placed in 96-well plates. Microorganisms were cultured on 270 discs for 24 h (90 discs), 72 h (90 other discs), and 5 days or 120 h (90 other discs). Biofilm formation of the strains and negative controls was measured using the microtiter plate assay by ELISA reading. The microbes' ability to produce biofilm was categorized based on the comparison of average optical density (OD) of tests versus a cut-off point OD (ODc) calculated as the average of the OD of corresponding negative controls plus 3× its standard deviation: non-biofilm former [OD ≤ ODc], weak biofilm former [ODc < OD ≤ (2 × ODc)], moderate biofilm former [(2 × ODc) < OD ≤ (4 × ODc)], and strong biofilm former [(4 × ODc) < OD]. These were also converted to ranked scores between zero (no biofilm) and 3. The difference between ODs with control ODs were calculated. These were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA, 2-way ANOVA, and Tukey tests (α = 0.05, α = 0.008).
resultsThe 3-way ANOVA showed that the overall difference among the ΔODs of 5 retainers (all microorganisms and all intervals combined, n = 270) was not significant (F = 1.860, P = 0.119). Nevertheless, the difference among 3 intervals (F = 31.607, P = 0.0000) and the difference among the 6 microorganisms (F = 24.044, P = 0.0000) were significant. According to the Tukey test, the differences between the 1st interval with either of the other two intervals was significant (both P values = 0.000). There were significant differences between Candida albicans with all other organisms (all 5 P values = 0.0000). All other pairwise comparisons were insignificant (all 10 P values ≥ 0.1). After taking the averages of the 3 intervals, the order of the biofilm generation for different materials were as follows: Detax (average score: 1.56), Easyvac (1.67), Erkodent (1.78), Clear Tech (1.83), BD (2.28).
conclusionsAs far as these 6 microorganisms are of concern, there might not be a significant overall difference among the clear retainer materials tested in this study. A significant overall increase was observed between the first and third days, which later did not significantly increase more until day 5. The Candida albicans biofilm was more intense than the tested 5 bacteria, which themselves showed rather similar growth patterns to each other.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.