| Literature DB >> 26576557 |
Arun Rameshwar Mhaske1, Pradeep Chandra Shetty2, N Sham Bhat2, C S Ramachandra2, S M Laxmikanth2, Kiran Nagarahalli2, Pawankumar Dnyandeo Tekale3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study is to assess the antiadherent and antibacterial properties of surface-modified stainless steel and NiTi orthodontic wires with silver against Lactobacillus acidophilus.Entities:
Keywords: Antiadherent properties; Antibacterial properties; Lactobacillus acidophilus; Orthodontic wires; Silver coating
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26576557 PMCID: PMC4648852 DOI: 10.1186/s40510-015-0110-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prog Orthod ISSN: 1723-7785 Impact factor: 2.750
Groups of wires used for antiadherent property of surface-modified orthodontic wires
| Group 1 | Control group—it consisted of 10 uncoated stainless steel orthodontic wires |
| Group 2 | Experimental group—it consisted of 10 surface-modified stainless steel orthodontic wires coated with silver |
| Group 5 | Control group—it consisted of 10 uncoated nickel titanium wires |
| Group 6 | Experimental group—it consisted of 10 surface-modified nickel titanium orthodontic wires coated with silver |
Groups of wires used for antibacterial property of surface-modified orthodontic wires
| Group 3 | Control group—it consisted of 10 uncoated stainless steel orthodontic wires |
| Group 4 | Experimental group—it consisted of 10 surface-modified stainless steel orthodontic wires coated with silver |
| Group 7 | Control group—it consisted of 10 uncoated nickel titanium wires |
| Group 8 | Experimental group—it consisted of 10 surface-modified nickel titanium orthodontic wires coated with silver |
Fig. 1Vacuum coating equipment
Fig. 2Coating process
Fig. 3Incubator
Fig. 4Colonies of L. acidophilus
Comparison of weight: initial, final, and change in weight of wires
| Group | Weight | Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Final | Change | ||
| Group 1 | 0.240 ± 0.021 | 0.325 ± 0.035 | 0.085 ± 0.024 |
|
| (0.200–0.250) | (0.250-0.350) | (35.4 %) | ||
| Group 2 | 0.245 ± 0.028 | 0.255 ± 0.037 | 0.010 ± 0.020 |
|
| (0.200–0.300) | (0.200–0.300) | (4.08 %) | ||
| Group 5 | 0.220 ± 0.026 | 0.265 ± 0.033 | 0.045 ± 0.028 |
|
| (0.200–0.250) | (0.250–0.350) | (20.5 %) | ||
| Group 6 | 0.225 ± 0.042 | 0.235 ± 0.047 | 0.010 ± 0.021 |
|
| (0.150–0.300) | (0.150–0.300) | (4.4 %) | ||
**Statistically significant
Comparison of colony count
| Group | Colony count |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Mean ± SD | ||
| Group 3 | 776–934 | 836.60 ± 48.97 |
|
| Group 4 | 176–262 | 220.90 ± 30.73 | |
| Group 7 | 710–810 | 748.90 ± 35.64 |
|
| Group 8 | 117–264 | 203.20 ± 41.94 | |
**Statistically significant