Healing of oral lichenoid lesions after replacing amalgam restorations: A systematic review

University Dental Hospital of Manchester, England, UK.
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology (Impact Factor: 1.46). 12/2004; 98(5):553-65. DOI: 10.1016/S1079210404000216
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We sought to systematically review the literature related to oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) and amalgam restorations.
Cohort and case-controlled studies (no randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials available) were reviewed with respect to inclusion criteria and data on patients with OLLs, treatment interventions, and the measurement of outcomes.
Fourteen cohort and 5 case-controlled trials met the criteria. The study population consisted of 1158 patients (27% male and 73% female; age range, 23-79 years). From 16% to 91% of patients had positive patch test results for at least 1 mercury compound. Of 1158 patients, 636 had to have their restorations replaced. The follow-up period ranged from 2 months to 9 1/2 years. Complete healing ranged from 37.5% to 100%. The greatest improvements were seen in lesions in close contact with amalgam.
Protocols must be standardized to obtain valid results. The replacement of amalgam restorations can result in the resolution or improvement of OLLs. Patch testing seems to be of limited value. The topographic relationship between an OLL and an amalgam restoration is a useful--but not conclusive--marker.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and Objectives The distinction of oral lichenoid reactions from oral lichen planus may be difficult in a clinical setting. Our aims were to ascertain the utility of patch testing to confirm the association of oral lichenoid reactions with dental restorations and to identify the benefits of replacement of restorations, primarily made of amalgam.Methods Patients seen in an oral medicine unit over a 10-year period diagnosed with oral lichenoid reactions, with oral lichen planus resistant to treatment or with atypical lichenoid features were included in this study. All had been subjected to skin patch testing. Histopathology reports blinded to patch test results were scrutinized. Patch-test-positive subjects were advised to have their restorations replaced. All were followed up to determine disease resolution for at least 3 months thereafter.ResultsAmong 115 patients, 67.8% patients reacted positive to a dental material and nearly a quarter to mercury or amalgam. No correlation was found between pathology and skin patch testing results (P = 0.44). A total of 87 patients were followed up in clinic, and among 26 patch-test-positive patients who had their amalgam fillings replaced, moderate to complete resolution was noted in 81%.Conclusions Skin patch testing is a valuable tool to confirm clinically suspected oral lichenoid reactions. Pathology diagnoses of oral lichenoid reactions did not correlate with patch test results. Prospective studies are needed to ascertain that a clinically suspected oral lichenoid reaction with a positive patch test result may resolve after the replacement of amalgam fillings.
    Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine 05/2015; DOI:10.1111/jop.12328 · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The benefit of patch testing patients with oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) is still debated. We assessed the results of patch testing in patients with multiple amalgams and multiple OLL, where the etiology of the oral mucosal disease was unclear. Patients referred from an oral medicine clinic were patch tested to the British Society of Cutaneous Allergy standard series, dental and materials series, and, in 1 patient, the dental methacrylate series also. Patients' responses to amalgam removal were assessed during a mean follow-up of 2.6 (range, 0-4.75) years. Thirty-one patients with OLL were referred for patch testing. Ten (32%) patients tested positively to mercury. Eight patients with positive reactions to mercury had amalgam removal, with complete or partial resolution of the OLL in all cases (100%). Patients with OLL of unclear etiology adjacent to large amalgam restorations should be investigated for delayed contact hypersensitivity. Removal of amalgams in patients with positive patch test reactions to mercury results in improvement or resolution of the OLL in most patients.
    Dermatitis 03/2015; 26(2):89-93. DOI:10.1097/DER.0000000000000109 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The role of metal exposure in the development of autoimmune disease (AID) is still controversial. Here, we studied the relationship between oral metal exposure, metal allergy and autoimmunity. A mixed population (n = 78) of non-allergic volunteers, metal-allergic patients and patients with oral problems putatively due to metal alloys was evaluated for oral Ni, Pd, Au and Hg exposure and skin hypersensitivity. Clinical autoimmune parameters were based on medical histories; additionally, serum levels of the four most common autoantibodies were measured. Skin hypersensitivity, as seen mainly for Ni and/or Pd, was not positively associated with autoimmune parameters. In contrast, metal hypersensitive individuals showed an extremely low frequency of thyroid autoantibodies (3% vs 20% in non-hypersensitive controls). Next, the relation between metal exposure and autoimmunity was evaluated in individuals >35 years (n = 58), since from that age on metal exposure had plateaued and was not correlated with age. In this subgroup, oral Ni exposure was associated (p < 0.01) with self-reported AID, irrespective of autoantibody levels. These unexpected findings warrant further confirmation in a larger test group. Of note, oral Pd, Au or Hg contacts were not associated with any of the clinical or serological autoimmune phenomena tested. The results of this study support the view that development of metal contact allergies may prevent autoimmune activation, and, second, that oral exposure to Pd, Au or Hg does not facilitate the development of AID.
    Autoimmunity 04/2015; DOI:10.3109/08916934.2015.1033688 · 2.75 Impact Factor