Intraoral appliances for in situ oral biofilm growth: a systematic review

Nizam Abdullah, Farah Al-Marzooq, Suharni Mohamad, Normastura Abd Rahman, Hien Chi Ngo, Lakshman Perera Samaranayake

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)


Background: Oral biofilms are the root cause of major oral diseases. As in vitro biofilms are not representative of the intraoral milieu, various devices have been manufactured over the years to develop Appliance Grown Oral Biofilm (AGOB). Objective: To review various intraoral appliances used to develop AGOB for microbiological analysis, and to judge the optimal means for such analyses. Design: Four databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Medline) were searched by two independent reviewers, and articles featuring the key words ‘device’ OR ‘splint’ OR ‘appliance’; ‘Oral biofilm’ OR ‘dental plaque’; ‘in vivo’ OR ‘in situ’; ‘Microbiology’ OR ‘Bacteria’ OR ‘microbiome’; were included. The standard Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were adopted for data gathering. Results: Of the 517 articles which met the initial inclusion criteria, 24 were deemed eligible for review. The age of the AGOB, sampled at various intervals, ranged from 30 min to 28 days. The most commonly used microbiome analytical methods were fluorescence microscopy, total cell count using conventional, and molecular tools including Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) platforms. Conclusions: No uniformly superior method for collecting AGOB could be discerned. NGS platforms are preferable for AGOB analyses.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1647757
JournalJournal of Oral Microbiology
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2019
Externally publishedYes


  • Intraoral appliance
  • in situ oral biofilm
  • oral plaque microbiome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry (miscellaneous)
  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases


Dive into the research topics of 'Intraoral appliances for in situ oral biofilm growth: a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this