135
ASSESSMENT OF THE BIOCOMPATIBILITY OF ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS
AND ARCHWIRES: AN IN VITRO INVESTIGATION
Yuldashev Temurkhon Akramovich
Assistant at the Alfraganus University
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14586356
INTRODUCTION
Orthodontic treatment is essential for correcting malocclusions and improving dental
aesthetics and function. The brackets and wires used in orthodontic therapy apply mechanical
forces to guide teeth into their desired positions. Given their prolonged contact with oral
tissues, understanding the biocompatibility of these materials is critical to ensuring patient
safety and successful treatment outcomes.
Biocompatibility refers to a material's ability to function within the div without causing
adverse effects. In orthodontics, this involves examining how brackets and wires interact with
oral tissues, including the gingiva, periodontal ligament, and alveolar bone. Reactions such as
cytotoxicity, inflammation, or allergies to orthodontic materials can hinder treatment progress
and negatively affect patient comfort.
Research has explored the biocompatibility of various orthodontic materials using both
in-vitro and in-vivo models, providing insights into the cellular and molecular responses
triggered by these appliances. These findings have been instrumental in identifying materials
with favorable biocompatibility profiles. However, the continuous development of orthodontic
materials calls for ongoing evaluations to ensure their safety and effectiveness.
KEYWORDS:
Biocompatibility, brackets, in-vitro study, orthodontics, wires.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Selection of Orthodontic Materials:
This study included a variety of commonly used orthodontic brackets and wires. Brackets
were selected from different manufacturers to represent diverse material compositions and
designs. Orthodontic wires of various alloys and dimensions were also included to evaluate
their biocompatibility comprehensively.
Cell Culture Assays:
Human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) were cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium
(DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin.
The cells were seeded onto the surfaces of the orthodontic brackets and wires, which were
placed in 24-well culture plates. Cytotoxicity was assessed using the MTT assay after incubation
periods of 24, 48, and 72 hours. Cell proliferation was evaluated using BrdU incorporation
assays according to the manufacturer's instructions. Inflammatory responses were measured
by quantifying the release of proinflammatory cytokines through enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assays (ELISAs).
Statistical Analysis:
Data from the cell culture assays were analyzed using statistical methods, including
analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post-hoc tests for multiple comparisons. Statistical
significance was considered at P < 0.05. Results were reported as mean ± standard deviation
(SD) or as percentages, as appropriate.
RESULTS
136
Cytotoxicity Assay
The MTT assay was used to assess the cytotoxic effects of orthodontic brackets and wires
on human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) after 24, 48, and 72 hours of incubation. Cell viability was
calculated as a percentage relative to untreated control cells.
Cell Proliferation Assay
Cell proliferation was evaluated by measuring BrdU incorporation, which reflects the rate
of DNA synthesis in HGFs cultured on the orthodontic brackets and wires.
Inflammatory Response
The release of proinflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor
necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), was quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays
(ELISAs) to assess the inflammatory potential of the orthodontic materials.
DISCUSSION
The biocompatibility of orthodontic materials is crucial for ensuring their safety and
effectiveness during treatment. This study evaluated the biocompatibility of commonly used
orthodontic brackets and wires through in-vitro assays, revealing favorable results across all
tested materials. The findings indicate minimal cytotoxicity, comparable cell proliferation rates,
and negligible inflammatory responses.
The cytotoxicity assays demonstrated high cell viability (>90%) for all materials over the
72-hour incubation period. These results align with previous research indicating low cytotoxic
effects of orthodontic brackets and wires on various cell types. The absence of significant
cytotoxicity supports the materials' tolerance by oral cells, underscoring their clinical
suitability.
Similarly, cell proliferation assays showed no significant differences in growth rates
among the tested materials, indicating that orthodontic brackets and wires do not inhibit
cellular proliferation. This capacity for cell growth and adherence is critical for tissue
remodeling and successful orthodontic treatment, as it facilitates tooth movement and tissue
repair.
The inflammatory potential of the materials was evaluated by measuring cytokine levels
in gingival fibroblasts. The levels of IL-6 and TNF-α were consistent across all materials,
suggesting minimal inflammatory responses. These results are consistent with prior studies
that reported low inflammatory cytokine levels in response to orthodontic appliances, further
supporting the biocompatibility of the tested materials.
While these in-vitro findings provide valuable insights, they are limited by the inability to
replicate the complexity of the in-vivo oral environment. Further studies involving animal
models and clinical trials are needed to validate these results. Additionally, long-term
investigations are essential to evaluate the durability and stability of orthodontic materials in
the oral cavity.
CONCLUSION
This study supports the favorable biocompatibility of commonly used orthodontic
brackets and wires, as evidenced by minimal cytotoxicity, consistent cell proliferation, and
negligible inflammatory responses. These findings suggest that the materials are well suited for
clinical applications. Ongoing research and innovation in orthodontic materials remain
essential to further improve patient safety and treatment outcomes.
137
References:
1.
Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. St. Louis, MO:
Mosby; 2019.
2.
Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy TH, Flores-Mir C. Frictional resistance in self-ligating
orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review.
Angle Orthod
.
2009;79:592–601. doi: 10.2319/060208-288.1.
3.
Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE, editors. Biomaterials Science: An
Introduction to Materials in Medicine. 3rd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2013.
4.
Sifakakis I, Eliades T. Biocompatibility of orthodontic adhesives. In: Eliades T, Eliades G,
Brantley WA, editors.
Orthodontic Applications of Biomaterials: A Clinical Guide
. Woodhead
Publishing Series in Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing; 2017. pp. 167–79.
5.
Flemming TF, Johnston WM, Seghi RR. Evaluation of in vivo and in vitro responses to
dental materials.
Adv Dent Res
. 1992;6:4–9.
6.
Eliades T, Brantley WA. The inappropriateness of conventional cytotoxicity testing for
assessing the biocompatibility of orthodontic materials.
Clin Oral Investig
. 2000;4:3–10.
7.
Geiger AM, Gorelick L, Gwinnett AJ, Benson BJ, Reddi AH. In vivo effects of recombinant
human bone morphogenetic protein-2 on the periodontal tissues in monkeys.
J Periodontol
.
1994;65:175–9.
8.
Patel A, Parikh I, Bahadure RN, Langade D, Kshirsagar K, Goel P. Evaluation of
biocompatibility of various orthodontic materials: a comparative study.
J Contemp Dent Pract
.
2013;14:461–7.
9.
Eliades T, Eliades G, Silikas N, Watts DC. Tensile properties of orthodontic wires in as-
received, recycled, and as-received/reused conditions.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
.
2011;139:299–303.
