Positive patch test reactions to allergens of the dental series and the relation to the clinical presentations.

Department of Dermatology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa 31096, Israel.
Contact Dermatitis (Impact Factor: 3.62). 11/2006; 55(4):216-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00905.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The clinical manifestations of contact allergic dermatitis to dental materials are not uniform. This study was performed to detect the frequent allergens in the dental series associated with contact dermatitis and to define the causal relationship between the different allergens and the relevant clinical presentations. Between the years 2000 and 2004, 134 patients, aged 20-80 years, were patch tested. 121 patients were included in the study. The most frequent oral manifestations were cheilitis and perioral dermatitis (25.6%), burning mouth (15.7%), lichenoid reaction (14.0%), and orofacial granulomatosis (10.7%). 18 (14.9%) patients were dental personnel, all of whom suffered from hand dermatitis. The common allergens detected included goldsodiumthiosulphate (14.0%), nickel sulfate (13.2%), mercury (9.9%), palladium chloride (7.4%), cobalt chloride (5.0%), and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (5.8%). Positive reactions to metals were frequent in all the different clinical variants, and no specific association between a specific clinical presentation and a particular allergen was found. Allergy to mercury was not a significant factor contributing to the pathogenesis of oral lichenoid reactions. However, a strong association with contact allergy to mercury in dental fillings was found in 2 patients with orofacial granulomatosis.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Dental products are widely used by patients and dental personnel alike and may cause problems for both. Dental materials could cause contact allergy with varying manifestations such as burning, pain, stomatitis, cheilitis, ulcers, lichenoid reactions localized to the oral mucosa in patients, and hand dermatitis in dental personnel. Patch testing with the dental series comprising commonly used materials can be used to detect contact allergies to dental materials.Aim:This study aimed to identify contact allergy among patients who have oral mucosal lesions after dental treatment and among dental personnel who came in contact with these materials.Materials and Methods:Twenty patients who had undergone dental procedures with symptoms of oral lichen planus, oral stomatitis, burning mouth, and recurrent aphthosis, were included in the study. Dental personnel with history of hand dermatitis were also included in the study. Patch testing was performed using Chemotechnique Dental Series and results interpreted as recommended by the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG).Results:Out of 13 patients who had undergone dental treatment/with oral symptoms, six patients with stomatitis, lichenoid lesions, and oral ulcers showed positive patch tests to a variety of dental materials, seven patients with ulcers had negative patch tests, seven dental personnel with hand dermatitis showed multiple allergies to various dental materials, and most had multiple positivities.Conclusion:The patch test is a useful, simple, noninvasive method to detect contact allergies among patients and among dental personnel dealing with these products. Long term studies are necessary to establish the relevance of these positive patch tests by eliminating the allergic substances, identifying clinical improvement, and substituting with nonallergenic materials.
    07/2014; 5(3):282-6. DOI:10.4103/2229-5178.137778
  • Contact Dermatitis 01/2015; 72(3). DOI:10.1111/cod.12343 · 3.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2001, gold was named Contact Allergen of the Year. More than a decade later, we continue to face several challenges in defining the role of gold in contact allergy. First, interpretation of gold reactions in the setting of epicutaneous patch testing may be difficult; in addition to being a common irritant, gold may be associated with significantly delayed and persistent reactions. Second, although gold compounds are commonly positive on patch testing, clinical relevance is relatively low and may be challenging to determine. Third, the complex interplay between gold and the human body is still poorly understood. In this review, we provide an overview of the literature concerning gold patch test positivity and present recommendations for epicutaneous patch testing with gold.
    Dermatitis 12/2014; 26(2). DOI:10.1097/DER.0000000000000101 · 1.36 Impact Factor