Citation Information :
Majorana A, Cavazzana E, Conti G, Veneri F, Bardellini E. Influence of Oral Hygiene after Orthodontic Appliance Removal in Children Candidates to Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A 10 Years’ Experience. J Contemp Dent 2019; 9 (2):68-71.
Objective: This cohort study aims to evaluate the impact of oral appliance removal on oral hygiene grade in children candidates to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) over a 10-year period. Materials and methods: The following data from 213 medical records of children candidates to HSCT for newly diagnosed hemato-oncologic diseases were collected: age, type of hemato-oncologic disease, presence of removable or fixed orthodontic appliance, debonding protocol, simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-S) before debonding (T0) and after 7 days (T1). Results: Out of 213 children candidates to HSCT, 44 patients (16.9%) wore an orthodontic device, in detail: 8 children wore a mobile appliance and 36 a fixed one. The removal of the fixed appliance was requested in six cases before performing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and in 30 cases before the conditioning. All the children underwent the same oral hygiene protocol after removing the fixed appliance. The OHI-S resulted significantly lower 7 days after the debonding procedure. Conclusion: The removal of the orthodontic appliance before HSCT increases the oral hygiene grade of the children candidates to transplantation. A correct protocol must be followed in order to respect the hard and soft tissues. Clinical significance: Orthodontic appliance removal before HSCT in children is recommended to ameliorate the oral hygiene grade of the patients, in addition, to prevent any form of traumatism on the oral mucosa.
Elad S, Raber-Durlacher JE, Brennan MT, et al. Basic oral care for hematology-oncology patients and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients: a position paper from the joint task force of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Support Care Cancer 2015;23(1):223–236. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-014-2378-x.
Claudino D, Kuga MC, Belizário L, et al. Enamel evaluation by scanning electron microscopy after debonding brackets and removal of adhesive remnants. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10(3):e248–e251. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54553.
Green JC, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc 1964;68:7–13. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1964.0034.
Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir A, Rahmati-Kamel M. Should the orthodontic brackets always be removed prior to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)? J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2016;6(2):142–152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2015.08.007.
Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Sztkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, et al. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel – current knowledge and future perspectives – a systematic review. Med Sci Monit 2014;20:1991–2001. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.890912.
Kim K, Heimisdottir K, Gebauer U, et al. Clinical and microbiological findings at sites treated with orthodontic fixed appliances in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(2):223–228. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.027.
Webb BJ, Koch J, Hagan JL, et al. Enamel surface roughness of preferred debonding and polishing protocols. J Orthod 2016;43(1):39–46. DOI: 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000009.
Vieira AC, Pinto RA, Chevitarese O, et al. Polishing after debracketing: its influence upon enamel surface. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1993;18(1):7–11.
Osorio R, Toledano M, García-Godoy F. Enamel surface morphology after bracket debonding. ASDC J Dent Child 1998;65(5):313–317.
Ireland AJ, Hosein I, Sherriff M. Enamel loss at bond-up, debond and cleanup following the use of a conventional light-cured composite and a resin modified glass polyalkenoate cement. Eur J Orthod 2005;27(4):413–419. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji031.
Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinşahin A, et al. Effect of resin removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod 2006;76(2):314–321. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0314:EORMOE]2.0.CO;2.
Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, et al. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2012;34(1):25–32. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq128.
Zaher AR, Abdalla EM, Abdel Motie MA, et al. Enamel colour changes after debonding using various bonding systems. J Orthod 2012;39(2):82–88. DOI: 10.1179/1465312512Z.0000000009.
Joo HJ, Lee YK, Lee DY, et al. Influence of orthodontic adhesives and clean-up procedures on the stain susceptibility after debonding. Angle Orthod 2011;81(2):334–340. DOI: 10.2319/062610-350.1.
Cardoso LAM, Valdrighi HC, Filho MV, et al. Effect of adhesive remnant removal on enamel topography after bracket debonding. Dental Press J Orthod 2014;19(6):105–112. DOI: 10.1590/2176-94220.127.116.11-112.oar.
Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ. The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108(3):284–293. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70023-4.
Leão Filho JCB, Braz AKS, Araújo RE, et al. Enamel quality after debonding: evaluation by optical coherence tomography. Braz Dent J 2015;26(4):384–389. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201300406.
Kim K, Jung WS, Cho S, et al. Changes in salivary periodontal pathogens after orthodontic treatment: an in vivo prospective study. Angle Orthod 2016;86(6):998–1003. DOI: 10.2319/070615-450.1.