OBJECTIVE: The chief aim of the study was to evaluate microbial retention on the salivary pellicle on treatment with oral rinses (CHX & EO)/PS (mimicking after meals use of mouth wash/PS).
METHODS: Noordini's Artifical Mouth model was used for developing the single species biofilm with early microbial colonizers of oral biofilm (A. viscosus, Strep. mitis and Strep. sanguinis respectively). The microbial retention on use of oral rinses comprising of CHX and EO as an active ingredients respectively was compared with Curcumin PS. For evaluating the microbial retention, the pellicle with microbial inoculation was developed on the glass beads in the mouth model. Subsequently the respective single specie biofilm was exposed to the mouth wash and PS after inoculation. It mimicked as use of mouth wash/PS after meals. The bacterial count in the dental biofilm was evaluated on serial dilution (CFU/ml). Sterile deionized water was used as a negative control. For qualitative analysis, Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to evaluate the microbial count.
RESULTS: From the data it was observed that for the treatment of single species experimental biofilm with commercially available mouth rinses (CHX & EO) and PS (curcumin), there was significant retention for S.mitis, S.sanguinis and A.viscosus. There was no significant difference observed between PS and CHX treated single species biofilm. Whereas a significant difference was observed between EO treated biofilms and CHX/PS treated biofilms (p⩽ 0.05).
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded from the results that curcumin PS and CHX should not be used after meals whereas EO containing mouth rinse can be used to maintain the oral mocroflora.
METHODS: After a thorough search of the online journals, a total of 482 documents were found using keywords such as "Orthodontic Treatment", "Aligner Auxiliaries", "Elastic Ligatures" and "Tooth Movement." The database research, elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction and risk of bias were performed by the authors independently. This systematic review and network meta-analysis included prospective studies and clinical trials to evaluate research that had looked at the impact of various aligner auxiliaries on orthodontic activity in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
RESULTS: Eight investigations of varying designs were selected for this review. The majority of investigations revealed that aligner auxiliaries significantly improve anterior root torque, rotation, and mesio-distal (M-D) movement, as well as posterior anchoring. They also significantly improved anterior root rotation. However, few studies have presented inconsistent or non-statistically significant findings.
CONCLUSION: Auxiliaries for aligners also appear to improve extrusion and other orthodontic movements, but there is insufficient evidence to support these claims. No research has examined posterior bucco-lingual expansion or tilting. Clarification of the effect of attachments and their related variables requires additional clinical investigations.