<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<italic>Background</italic> This study aimed to identify the most effective cleaning method for removable orthodontic clear vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) and to assess the amount of dental plaque growth by microbiological analysis after performing mechanical, chemical and a combination of both cleaning methods.
<italic>Methods</italic> The subjects were 23 patients from the Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Dental Clinic who were in the retention phase of their orthodontic treatment using VFRs. The duration of the study was five weeks. Every week the subjects were given a new VFR and asked to wear it (20–22 hr/day) with instructions to use one of the following specific cleaning methods: running water, brushing with soap, immersing in sodium carbonate with sulphate cleaning solution, brushing with a fluoride toothpaste, and brushing with water. At the end of each week, the VFRs were returned, and a microbiological analysis was performed.
<italic>Results</italic> At a statistically significant level, the highest bacterial concentrations were found on VFRs cleaned with running water compared to the other cleansing methods. There was no significant difference found in the bacterial count between brushing and toothpaste; brushing and soap, brushing and water, and tablet cleaning methods. Brushing with a fluoride toothpaste was the most effective method for cleaning the VFRs.
<italic>Conclusion</italic> The findings of the present study indicate that cleaning VFRs with water alone is insufficient. Using chemical cleaning solutions and/or mechanical brushing significantly reduces the bacterial count on VFRs surfaces. Brushing with a fluoride toothpaste seems to be the most effective cleaning method for VFRs, given the limitations of the study.
</abstract>

Background This study aimed to identify the most effective cleaning method for removable orthodontic clear vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) and to assess the amount of dental plaque growth by microbiological analysis after performing mechanical, chemical and a combination of both cleaning methods.
Methods The subjects were 23 patients from the Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Dental Clinic who were in the retention phase of their orthodontic treatment using VFRs. The duration of the study was five weeks. Every week the subjects were given a new VFR and asked to wear it (20–22 hr/day) with instructions to use one of the following specific cleaning methods: running water, brushing with soap, immersing in sodium carbonate with sulphate cleaning solution, brushing with a fluoride toothpaste, and brushing with water. At the end of each week, the VFRs were returned, and a microbiological analysis was performed.
Results At a statistically significant level, the highest bacterial concentrations were found on VFRs cleaned with running water compared to the other cleansing methods. There was no significant difference found in the bacterial count between brushing and toothpaste; brushing and soap, brushing and water, and tablet cleaning methods. Brushing with a fluoride toothpaste was the most effective method for cleaning the VFRs.
Conclusion The findings of the present study indicate that cleaning VFRs with water alone is insufficient. Using chemical cleaning solutions and/or mechanical brushing significantly reduces the bacterial count on VFRs surfaces. Brushing with a fluoride toothpaste seems to be the most effective cleaning method for VFRs, given the limitations of the study.

Analysis of the growth of dental plaque on the surface of orthodontic vacuum-formed retainers following the use of different cleaning methods

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Background This study aimed to identify the most effective cleaning method for removable orthodontic clear vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) and to assess the...

a. Descriptive statistics and comparison of bacterial count (log10) using different cleaning methods (Kruskal–Wallis test).
							95% confidence interval for Mean
	Median	Min	Max	Mean	Std. dev	Std. error	Lower bound	Upper bound	P value
Water	5.46^a	0.00	7.11	5.09	1.79	0.39	4.28	5.91	0.001*
Brush+soap	4.95^b	0.00	6.46	4.34	1.94	0.42	3.46	5.22
Tablet	4.45^b	0.00	6.46	4.22	1.28	0.28	3.6	4.8
Brush+water	4.36^b	0.00	5.54	3.29	2.41	0.53	2.19	4.38
Brush+toothpaste	4.26^b	0.00	6.08	3.05	2.51	0.55	1.91	4.20
b. Pairwise comparison of bacterial count (log10) using different cleaning methods (Mann–Whitney U test).
P value of difference versus other groups
Group	Water	Brush and toothpaste	Brush and soap	Brush and water	Tablet
Water		0.001*	0.016*	0.000*	0.001*
Brush and toothpaste	0.001*		0.110	0.690	0.456
Brush and soap	0.016*	0.110		0.234	0.182
Brush and water	0.000*	0.690	0.234		0.880
Tablet	0.001*	0.456	0.182	0.880

Analysis of the growth of dental plaque on the surface of orthodontic vacuum-formed retainers following the use of different cleaning methods

Publié en ligne: 20 févr. 2023

Pages: 55 - 60

Reçu: 01 sept. 2022

Accepté: 01 oct. 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2022-0039

© 2023 Marwa R. Halawani et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Figure 2

A comparison of bacterial count (log10) using different cleaning methods.