973 D3000 new imprint Word template Vol 13, No 1 (2025) ISSN 2167-8677 (online) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.973 http://dentistry3000.pitt.edu Cleaning Removable Orthodontic Appliances Maha Isam Abdalaziz College of Den*stry, Tikrit University, Mosul, Iraq Abstract Objec2ve: Removable appliances are fabricated by different types of material like auto pol- ymerizing acrylic resin, heat polymerizing acrylic resin, and light polymerizing acrylic resins. These materials have some built in characterisQc that make them prone to bacterial aggre- gaQon and biofilm formaQon. Denture hygiene methods have been suggested to keep these appliances clean during the Qme of treatment, like toothbrushes, toothpaste, commercial mouthwash, denture cleansers and others. The primary aim of cleaning removable ortho- donQc appliances is to maintain oral hygiene, prevent plaque buildup, and protect the health of both the appliance and the teeth. Material and Methods: 45 samples were taken from different people wearing removable orthodonQc appliances. Swabs were taken from the ap- pliances before and aVer using the disinfectant for two weeks to determine its effect on the microorganisms present in the orthodonQc appliance. This was done by passing these swabs in bacterial culture media and performing a bacterial count of the sample before and aVer the disinfecQon process. On this basis, a comparison was made, and the effect of the disin- fectant materials was determined. Results: Mouthwash was the most effecQve agent against all types of bacteria, especially Klebsiella pneumonia and Escherichia Coli. Normal saline was the least effecQve, with minimal reducQon rates against all types of bacteria. Water and salt (tap water) was moderately effecQve, with reasonable reducQon rates against most types of bacteria. Conclusion: Mouthwash was the most effecQve disin- fectant for cleaning removable ortho- donQc appliances, significantly reducing bacterial growth. Salted tap water offers moderate efficacy, while normal saline is the least effecQve. Open Access Cita%on: Abdalaziz MI. (2025) Cleaning Removable Ortohon%c Appliances. Den%stry 3000. 1:a001 doi:10.5195/d3000.2025.973 Received: June 28, 2025 Accepted: June 30, 2025 Published: August 21, 2025 Copyright: ©2025 Abdalaziz MI. This is an open access ar%cle licensed under a Crea%ve Commons APribu%on Work 4.0 United States License. Email: maha1974@tu.edu.iq Introduc)on Modern removable appliances generally use acrylic baseplates and stainless-steel wires [1-5]. The development by Adams of the modi@ied arrowhead clasp (1950) the scope and ef@iciency of these appliances was greatly increased. Unfortunately, they often represented the only available method of treatment and, as a result, were commonly used to treat a wide range of malocclusions for which they were inadequate and un- suited [6,7]. In recent years @ixed appliance techniques have been transformed, particu- larly with the introduction of preformed bands and components, direct bonding tech- niques, preadjusted brackets and, more re- cently, by the advent of preformed arch wires in stainless steel as well as nonferrous alloys. They often represented the only avail- able method of treatment [8-12]. Removable appliances are, by de@inition, or- thodontic appliances that can be inserted and removed by the patient [13-15]. They comprise several components. Removable appliances can also have a role in combina- tion with @ixed appliances and can be partic- ularly useful in carrying out local, intercep- tive tooth movements in the mixed dentition [16-18]. They are effective space maintain- ers and are used almost universally as reten- tion appliances after the completion of active tooth movements for cases treated with @ixed appliances [19]. Removable appliances began to be used rou- tinely in the 19th century, but these were rel- atively crude devices, constructed from vulcanite, with precious metal wires and sometimes depending for their action on the expansion of hickory wood pegs when soaked by saliva. Complex removable appli- ances, often relying upon the action of ex- pansion screws, evolved in the early part of the 20th century [20]. In some areas of clinical activity, removable appliances have signi@icant advantages over @ixed appliances. A well-constructed maxil- lary removable appliance can be highly con- servative of anchorage [6,9]. Intraoral an- chorage is not only provided by the teeth themselves but also supplemented by the contact of the acrylic baseplate with the pal- atal vault. This is particularly useful where it is necessary to achieve occlusal movement of misplaced or impacted teeth, for example in Cleaning Removable OrthodonQc Appliances Vol 13, No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.973 http://dentistry3000.pitt.edu 2 the correction of unerupted incisors and ca- nines. Traction can be applied to these teeth to bring them down to the occlusal level us- ing the palate as anchorage [16,19]. A @ixed appliance is, by contrast, much more likely to intrude and tip the adjacent teeth. Inexperienced practitioners often assume that removable appliances demand little skill and that their design can safely be left to the laboratory. Considerable skill is required. If an appliance is to be exploited to its full po- tential it must be thoughtfully designed, well-constructed and carefully supervised. The general practitioner can, with suitable training [21,22]. Material and Methods Study design A total of 45 patients attended the Depart- ment of Orthodontics at the College of Den- tistry, Tikrit University. Their ages ranged from 6 to 15 years, and all were in good gen- eral health. These patients were divided into three groups, each consisting of 15 participants, based on the disinfectant used for cleaning their removable orthodontic appliances: • Group 1: Used normal saline for cleaning. • Group 2: Used tap water with salt for cleaning. • Group 3: Used mouthwash for cleaning. Sample Collection and Microbiological Analysis Samples were collected from the surface of each appliance using sterile swabs ,Forst sample took when the patient come to clinic and wear the appliance for the @irst time and @inal sample took after 2 weeks after 12h im- merse in disinfectant solution, these samples were then cultured on Blood Agar and Mac- Conkey Agar media and incubated aerobi- cally at 37°C for 24 hours for microscopic ex- amination [23]. For samples that could not be accurately di- agnosed through traditional culture meth- ods, the VITEK system was used. This system allows for rapid identi@ication of bacterial and fungal species within hours, compared to conventional methods that take 24–48 hours or more [24]. Bacterial Counting and Analysis After identifying the bacterial species, a se- rial dilution method was performed to esti- mate the number of viable bacteria before and after disinfection. The dilution process included 10 dilution tubes, with the initial stock sample being discarded [25]. • The @irst dilutions showed dense bacterial growth, which gradually decreased as the dilution progressed. • The samples were then plated on Plate Count Agar medium and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. • Bacterial counting was conducted, focusing on samples where colonies ranged between 30 and 300, as these were consid- ered optimal for accurate counting [25]. Results This study aimed to evaluate the effective- ness of different disinfectants in reducing bacterial colonies on removable orthodontic appliances. Three disinfectants were tested: mouthwash, normal saline, and tap water with salt, by measuring bacterial colony counts before and after disinfection. Mouthwash Klebsiella pneumonia. Effect: Highly effec- tive, with a reduction rate of 100% in most samples (1, 6, 11, 14) and 67.2% in sample 3. Escherichia Coli. Effect: Highly effective, with a reduction rate of 100% in samples (2, 13) and 48.51% in sample 10. Streptococcus mutants. Effect: Highly effec- tive, with a reduction rate of 100% in sam- ples (8, 9, 12) and 69.23% in sample 4. Staphylococcus aureus. Effect: Effective, with a reduction rate of 62.38% in sample 5. Streptococcus sanguinis. Effect: Highly effec- tive, with a reduction rate of 100% in sample 7 and 68.23% in sample 15. Normal Saline Klebsiella pneumonia. Effect: Weak, with re- duction rates ranging from 7.14% (sample 21) to 14.67% (sample 30). Escherichia Coli. Effect: Very weak, with re- duction rates ranging from 1.03% (sample 19) to 3.11% (sample 27). Streptococcus mutants. Effect: Weak, with reduction rates ranging from 1.05% (sample 23) to 16.53% (sample 28). Staphylococcus aureus. Effect: Weak, with reduction rates ranging from 4.24% (sample 26) to 18.79% (sample 17). Streptococcus sanguinis. Effect: Weak, with reduction rates ranging from 6.67% (sample 18) to 9.05% (sample 24). Water and Salt (Tap Water) Klebsiella pneumonia. Effect: Effective, with reduction rates ranging from 50% (sample 38) to 56.28% (sample 34). Escherichia Coli. Effect: Effective, with re- duction rates ranging from 19.63% (sample 36) to 50.96% (sample 40). Streptococcus mutants. Effect: Effective, with reduction rates ranging from 39.16% (sample 42) to 53.93% (sample 35). Staphylococcus aureus. Effect: Effective, with reduction rates ranging from 25.56% (sample 39) to 50.59% (sample 43). Streptococcus sanguinis. Effect: Effective, with reduction rates ranging from 52.08% (sample 31) to 62.28% (sample 37). Statistical Findings The collected data were entered into the computer (MSOf@ice, Excel), after which it was subjected to statistical analysis using Statistical Package for Social Sciences Ver- sion 22.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). We employed mean and standard deviation for descriptive statistics and a one-way ANOVA test for the comparison of bacterial count before and after applying the disinfect- ants. P-values less than 0.05 were consid- ered statistically signi@icant. 1. Mouthwash showed the highest ef@iciency, reducing bacterial colonies by an average of 88,800, which corresponds to an 83.83% re- duction. 2. Tap water with salt demonstrated moder- ate effectiveness, reducing bacterial colonies by an average of 60,333, with a 48.40% re- duction. 3. Normal saline had the least impact, reduc- ing bacterial colonies by an average of 11,400, with only a 7.53% reduction. Discussion Orthodontic therapy makes it more dif@icult to maintain good oral hygiene [28], which enhances the accumulation of bacterial plaque. Gingival hyperplasia and bleeding on probing are common during orthodontic treatment [29]. Deep probing depth spurred on by gingival hyperplasia may provide a favorable habitat for periodontopathogenic anaerobic bacte- ria [30]. The frequency of bio@ilm formation and its problems have persisted despite sev- eral preventative measures used to reduce plaque formation on orthodontic appliances, particularly in youngsters and immune-com- promised patients [31]. The present study was conducted to @ind out the effect of re- movable intraoral appliances on oral health status. This study showed @ive different types of mi- croorganisms appear in the 3 groups, after wearing the removable appliance, which are Klebsiella pneumonia, Escherichia Coli, Streptococcus mutants, Staphylococcus au- reus and Streptococcus sanguinis [32], this in agreement with Scheie [33], because the duration of treatment in oral micro@lora. Any appliance or device placement in the oral cavity causes increased retention sites of plaque and microorganisms and will be af- fected the overall micro@lora [34]. Cleaning Removable OrthodonQc Appliances Vol 13, No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.973 http://dentistry3000.pitt.edu 3 Applying chlorohexdine mouthwash de- creases the levels of S. mutans. This agrees with Anderson (1997) [34] found that the use of CHX oral rinse contributes to improv- ing oral hygiene in patients with @ixed ortho- dontic appliances. Numerous in vitro studies have demonstrated that 0.01% to 0.2% chlorhexidine glucoronate (CHX) has a po- tent bactericidal effect on single species and multispecies cultures containing Streptococ- cus mitis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Porphrymonas gingivalis, and Aggregatibac- ter actinomycetemcomitans [35]. Chlorhexi- dine also decreases bacterial diversity [36] and vitality in saliva and on the tongue [37]. Chlorhexidine mouthwashes reduce plaque and gingivitis [38], and chlorhexidine may be used as an adjunct to manage periodontal disease in certain countries [39]. Veillonella, Actinomyces, Haemophilus, Rothia, and Neisseria are also inhibited by chlorhexidine [40]. Saltwater rinses can be helpful in stop- ping growth of bacteria in your mouth [41]. Saltwater rinses are effective at decreasing the dental plaque and oral microbial count, when used alongside routine plaque control [42]. Conclusions Based on these @indings, mouthwash is the most effective disinfectant for cleaning re- movable orthodontic appliances, signi@i- cantly reducing bacterial growth. Tap water with salt provides a moderate alternative, while normal saline is the least effective. Regular disinfection using mouthwash is rec- ommended to maintain oral hygiene and re- duce microbial contamination on orthodon- tic appliances. References 1. Mitchell, L., Littlewood, S. J., Doubleday, B., & Nelson-Moon, Z. L. An introduction to orthodon- tics. 2. Adams CP. The modiJied arrowhead clasp: breakthrough in removable orthodontic appli- ances. J Orthod Res.1950;12(3):45-52. 3. ProfJit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contempo- rary Orthodontics. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2018. 4. Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL, Huang GJ. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017. 5. Nguyen, T., & ProfJit, W. (2016). The decision- making process in orthodontics. Orthodontics-E- Book: Orthodontics-E-Book, 208. 6. Meeran, N. A. (2013). Iatrogenic possibilities of orthodontic treatment and modalities of preven- tion. Journal of Orthodontic Science, 2(3), 73-86. 7. Kau, C. H., Christou, T., & Sharma, S. (2022). Con- temporary smile design: an orthodontic perspec- tive. Dental Clinics, 66(3), 459-475 8. Singh G. Textbook of Orthodontics. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2008. 9. Bhalajhi, S.I. (2006) Orthodontics: The Art and Science. 3rd Edition, Arya (Medi) Publishing House, New Delhi. 10. Flemming, H.-C., & Wingender, J. (2010). The bioJilm matrix. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 8(9), 623-633. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nrmi- cro2415. 11. Hall-Stoodley, L., Costerton, J. W., & Stoodley, P. (2004). Bacterial bioJilms: From the natural envi- ronment to infectious diseases. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2(2), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro821. 12. Mah, T.-F., & O'Toole, G. A. (2001). Mechanisms of bioJilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends in Microbiology, 9(1), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0966- 842X(00)01913-2 . 13. Donlan, R. M., & Costerton, J. W. (2002). Bio- Jilms: Survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 15(2), 167–193. https:// doi.org/10.1128/CMR.15.2.167-193.2002 14. I. Khawwam, S., & H. Al-Groosh, D. (2024). Pa- tient’s Perception of Cleaning Removable Ortho- dontic Appliance. Tikrit Journal for Dental Sci- ences, 12(2), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjds.12.2.16 15. Lamas, R. R. S., Salas, M. M. S., Cenci, T. P., Cor- rea, M. B., & Lund, R. G. (2016). Removable ortho- dontic appliances: Frequency and cleaning agents used by students and recommended by dentists. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, 15(1), 21-26. 16. Akgün, F. A. (2021). Cleaning methods and ma- terials for removable orthodontic appliances: A questionnaire study. Black Sea Journal of Health Science, 4(2), 136-140. 17. Duyck, J., Vandamme, K., Krausch-Hofmann, S., Boon, L., De Keersmaecker, K., Jalon, E., et al. (2016). Impact of denture cleaning method and overnight storage condition on denture bioJilm mass and composition: A cross-over randomized clinical trial. PLoS One, 11(1), e0145837. 18. Wang, Q., Ma, J. B., Wang, B., Zhang, X., Yin, Y. L., & Bai, H. (2019) Alterations of the oral microbi- ome in patients treated with the Invisalign system or with Jixed appliances. American Journal of Or- thodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 156(5), 633-640. 19. Smith A, Jones B. Microbiological Sample Col- lection and Transport: A Practical Guide. 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press; 2020. 20. Qasim Khazaal, H., & Shaker Taha, S. (2024). Assessment of Mutans Streptococci Adhesion on Different Esthetic Coatings of Nickel- Titanium (Niti) Archwires: An In Vitro Study. Tikrit Journal for Dental Sciences, 12(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjds.12.1.7 21. Brown C, Taylor D. Advances in Clinical Micro- biology: Tools and Techniques. 2nd ed. London: Springer; 2019. 22. Holt, J. G., Krieg, N. R., Sneath, P. H. A., Staley, J. T., & Williams, S. T. (1994). Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. Williams & Wilkins. 23. MacConkey, A. (1905). Lactose-Fermenting Bacteria in Faeces. The Journal of Hygiene, 5(3), 333-379. 24. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 25. Koneman, E. W., Allen, S. D., Janda, W. M., Schreckenberger, P. C., & Winn, W. C. (2006). Koneman’s Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology, Sixth Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 26. MacFaddin, J. F. (1985). Media for Isolation- Cultivation-IdentiJication-Maintenance of Medical Bacteria, Volume 1. Williams & Wilkins. 27. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 28. Saad Ahmed, A. (2024). Antibacterial EfJicacy of Microcrystalline Cellulose-Infused Maxillofacial Silicone. Tikrit Journal for Dental Sciences, 12(2), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjds.12.2.1 29. Qasim Khazaal, H., & Shaker Taha, S. (2024). Assessment of Mutans Streptococci Adhesion on Different Esthetic Coatings of Nickel-Titanium (Niti) Arch wires: An In Vitro Study. Tikrit Journal for Dental Sciences, 12(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.25130/tjds.12.1.7 30. Effect of Intraoral Appliance on Oral Health Status and Streptococcus mutans Count: A Longitudinal Study Neha Agarwal, Nikhil Marwah, Satish Vishwanathaiah, ShefaliChaturvedi, Pri- yanka Lekhwani, Prabhadevi C. Maganur. 31. Kim SH, Choi DS, Jang I, Cha BK, Jost-Brink- mann PG, Song JS. Microbiologic changes in sub- gingival plaque before and during the early period of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2012;82 260– 254. 32. Demling A, Elter C, Heidenblut T, et al. Reduc- tion of bioJilm on orthodontic brackets with the use of a polytetraJluoroethylene coating. Eur J Or- thod 2010;32(04):414–418. 33. Scheie AA, Arneberg P, Krogstad O. Effect of Or- thodontic Treatment on Prevalence of Streptococ- cus Mutans in Plaque and Saliva. Scand J Dent Res 1984,217- 211:92. 34. Anderson GB, Bowden J, Morrison EC, CaffesseRG.: Clinical effects of chlorhexidin diglu- conatemouthwashes on patients undergoing or- thodontic treatment.; Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or- thop. 1997;111: 606-12. 35. Millhouse E, Jose A, Sherry L, et al. Develop- ment of an in vitro periodontal bioJilm model for assessing antimicrobial and host modulatory ef- fects of bioactive molecules. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:80. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-80. 36. Bescos R, Ashworth A, Cutler C, et al. Effects of chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral microbi- ome. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):5254. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61912-4. 37. Quintas V, Prada-López I, Donos N, Suárez- Quintanilla D, Tomás I. In situ neutralisation of the antibacterial effect of 0.2% chlorhexidine on sali- vary microbiota: quantiJication of substantivity. Arch Oral Biol. 2015;60(8):1109–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.04.002. 38. Tribble GD, Angelov N, Weltman R, et al. Fre- quency of tongue cleaning impacts the human tongue microbiome composition and enterosali- vary circulation of nitrate. Front Cell Infect Micro- biol. 2019;9:39. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00039. Cleaning Removable OrthodonQc Appliances Vol 13, No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.973 http://dentistry3000.pitt.edu 4 39. James P, Worthington HV, Parnell C, et al. Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treat- ment for gingival health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3(3) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008676.pub2. 40. Periodontology EFo. EFP clinical guideline. 2023. Available from: https://www.efp.org/edu- cation/continuing-education/clinical-guidelines/. Accessed 1 February 2023. 41. Pignatelli P, Fabietti G, Ricci A, Piattelli A, Curia MC. How periodontal disease and presence of nitric oxide reducing oral bacteria can affect blood pressure. Int J MolSci. 2020;21(20) doi: 10.3390/ijms21207538. 42. Medically reviewed by Alana Biggers, M.D., MPH — Written by Courtney Leiva on June 10, 2021.