Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Orthodontic 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. METHODS: In 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). RESULTS: The 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). CONCLUSIONS: As 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.