Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy can have potentially serious consequences, and reports of orthodontic patients reacting to NRL have increased significantly over recent years. It is therefore important for the orthodontist to know how to manage patients with an NRL allergy and how to deal with possible reactions to NRL. Safe and effective practice depends on recognizing patients who are at risk of NRL allergy, and an awareness of materials and equipment that contain NRL and the availability of suitable NRL-free alternatives.
JacobsenN, Hensten-PettersenA.Changes in occupational health problems and adverse patient reactions in orthodontics from 1987 to 2000. Eur J Orthod2003; 25: 591–98.
2.
SnyderHA, SettleSThe rise in latex allergy: implications for the dentist. J Am Dent Assoc1994; 125(8): 1089–97.
3.
HansonM, LobnerDIn vitro neuronal cytotoxicity of latex and non-latex orthodontic elastics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2004; 126(1): 65–70.
4.
RussellKA, MilneAD, KhannaRA, LeeJMIn vitro assessment of the mechanical properties of latex and non-latex orthodontic elastics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2001; 120: 36–44.
5.
NattrassC, IrelandAJ, LovellCRLatex allergy in an orthognathic patient and implications for clinical management. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg1999; 37: 11–13.
6.
EverettFG, HiceTLContact stomatitis resulting from the use of orthodontic rubber elastics: report of case. J Am Dent Assoc1974; 88: 1030–31.
CullinanP, BrownR, FieldA, Latex allergy. A position paper of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Clin Exp Allergy2003; 33: 1484–99.
SommerS, WilkinsonSM, BeckMH, EnglishJS, GawkrodgerDJ, GreenCType IV hypersensitivity reactions to natural rubber latex: results of a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol2002; 146:114–17.
11.
NeiburgerEJA case of possible latex allergy. J Clin Orthod1991; 25: 559–60.
12.
EverettFG, HiceTLContact stomatitis resulting from the use of orthodontic rubber elastics: report of case. J Am Dent Assoc1974; 88: 1030–31.
13.
ShoupAJGuidelines for the management of latex allergies and safe use of latex in perioperative practice settings. AORN J1997; 66: 726, 729–31.
14.
SaaryMJ, KananiA, AlghadeerH, HolnessDL, TarloSMChanges in rates of natural rubber latex sensitivity among dental school students and staff members after changes in latex gloves. J Allergy Clin Immunol2002; 109: 131–35.
15.
FieldEA, FayMFIssues of latex safety in dentistry. Br Dent J1995; 179: 247–53.
16.
FieldEA, LongmanLP. Guidance for the Management of Natural Rubber Latex Allergy in Dental Patients and Dental Health Care Workers. London: Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK), The Royal College of Surgeons, 2004.
17.
HwangCJ, ChaJYMechanical and biological comparison of latex and silicone rubber bands. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2003; 124: 379–86.
18.
RenY, MalthaJC, Kuijpers-JagtmanAM. Optimum force magnitude for orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic literature review. Angle Orthod2003; 73: 86–92.
19.
SamuelsRH, RudgeSJ, MairLHA clinical study of space closure with nickel–titanium closed coil springs and an elastic module. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1998; 114: 73–79.
20.
NightingaleC, JonesSPA clinical investigation of force delivery systems for orthodontic space closure. J Orthod2003; 30: 229–36.
21.
DixonV, ReadMJ, O'BrienKD, WorthingtonHV, MandallNA. A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure. J Orthod2002; 29: 31–36.
22.
Project Team of the Resuscitation Council (UK).Emergency Medical Treatment of Anaphylactic Reactions for First Medical Responders and the Community Nurses. Published 1999; revised 2002 and 2005. Available at: http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/reaction.htm (accessed 21 November 2006).
