Transient bacteremia following the removal of four different types of rapid palatal expanders


TİTİZ YURDAKAL S., Sami Güvenç I., GÜNGÖR S.

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, 2024 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Publication Date: 2024
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00056-024-00523-4
  • Journal Name: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, MEDLINE
  • Keywords: Evidence-based dentistry, Orthodontic fixed appliances, Pre-exposure prophylaxis, Rapid maxillary expansion, Streptococcus
  • Dokuz Eylül University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

Purpose: General health related recommendations for prophylactic measures in connection with orthodontic treatments are limited due to the lack of evidence-based data. This study aimed to investigate the development of transient bacteremia following the removal of four types of rapid palatal expanders (RPE). Methods: Seventy-five individuals aged 10–18 years undergoing rapid palatal expansion with four types of RPE were categorized according to the type of RPE used in their treatment: banded tooth-borne (group A (1), n = 17), banded tooth- and tissue-borne (group A (2), n = 17), bonded tooth-borne (group B (1), n = 18), and bonded tooth- and tissue-borne (group B (2), n = 23). Gingival inflammation was assessed using the gingival index one day before RPE removal. Furthermore, samples of blood (5 ml each) were collected before and 3 min after RPE removal. The groups were statistically evaluated for comparability with respect to sex, age, or wear time of the RPE and to the gingival index. In addition, the prevalence of bacteremia in the different groups was evaluated and statistically compared. Results: No significant difference was found among the groups (p > 0.05) for sex, age, and RPE wear time. Mean gingival index was higher in group B (2) than in group A (1) (p < 0.05). The prevalence of bacteremia did not differ significantly between groups. Streptococcus species were identified in all bacteremia cases. The bacteremia prevalence of the groups was as follows: group A (1), 11.8%; group A (2), 23.5%; group B (1), 16.7%; and group B (2), 30.4%. Conclusion: This investigation demonstrated that removal of a RPE could cause bacteremia, but the RPE design did not affect the prevalence of bacteremia. The results of this study support the necessity of prophylaxis measures before RPE removal in indicated patients.