Dental Allergic Contact Dermatitis: An Interesting Case Series and Review of the Literature

Frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients

BACKGROUND

While many studies have reported on occupational allergic contact dermatitis amongst dental personnel, studies on the relevance of patch testing in dental patients are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in patients with intra- and perioral complaints.

METHODS

A total of 360 patients with intra- and perioral complaints suspected of having a contact allergy were patch-tested with the dental allergen series, European Baseline Series, and extended Amsterdam Baseline Series at Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and November 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 285 patients (79.2%) had a positive patch test reaction for either one (18.6%) or multiple allergens (60.6%). Sodium tetrachloropalladate was the most sensitising allergen with 98 patients (27.2%) testing positive, followed by nickel sulphate (23.3%), methylisothiazolinone (15.6%), and fragrance mix I (14.2%). Clinical relevance was found in 68 of 208 patients (32.7%), with patients having one (15.4%) or multiple (17.3%) patch test reactions clinically relevant to their (peri)oral complaints.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically relevant patch test reactions were frequently seen in dental patients. Although this study provides us with a better understanding on the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients, further studies are needed to confirm our results.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis-Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%-3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross- and co-sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.

[Allergic reactions to bioimplants]

BACKGROUND

Bioimplants are used in a variety of ways in otorhinolaryngology, most commonly in facial reconstructive surgery, cochlear implants (CI), bone-anchored hearing aids, and partial/total ossicular replacement prostheses (PORP/TORP), but also for tympanic drainage, laryngeal cannula, voice prostheses after laryngectomy, etc., and in otorhinolaryngology-related procedures as dental implants in dentistry.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to analyze the immunology of allergic reactions to bioimplants and to determine the available evidence by searching Medline, PubMed, and national and international study and guideline registries and the Cochrane Library. Human studies published in the period up to and including 12/2021 were considered.

RESULTS

Based on the international literature and previous experience, a review of allergies to bioimplants in otolaryngology is presented.

CONCLUSION

Otorhinolaryngologists should always consider the possibility of allergic reactions when inserting allogeneic materials, particularly, but not only, when using bioimplants.

Promotion of Nickel (Ni) Allergy by Anamnestic Sensitization with a Bacterial Component, Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), in Mice

Background/Objective:

Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) promote allergic responses to nickel (Ni) both in the sensitization and elicitation steps. In this study, we examine the effect of pre-sensitization to LPS on the occurrence of Ni allergy using a mouse model.

Method:

A 100 mg of LPS was injected into C57BL/6J mice intraperitoneally (ip). Three weeks later, the mice were subsequently injected with 0.3 μ moles of nickel dichloride (NiCl₂) and 100 μg of CpG-DNA, which acted as an adjuvant. The mice were repeatedly immunized with the 0.3 μg of nickel sulfate (NiSO₄), along with 300 μl of the adjuvant, Inject Alum (Pierce, USA). Then we examined the producing capabilities of T helper type 1 (Th1) and 2 (Th2) cytokines (interferon-gamma- (IFN)-γ and interleukin (IL)-10, respectively) from anti CD3 antibody-stimulated spleen cells.

Results:

Pre-treatment with LPS, followed by repeated challenges with Ni²⁺ and adjuvants significantly enhanced the IFN-γ-producing capability of spleen cells (n=5, p<0.01); however, that could not enhance the capability of spleen cells by a single challenge with Ni²⁺ and adjuvants (n=5). In contrast, without LPS treatment, single or even repeated challenges by Ni²⁺ could not enhance the IFN-γ-producing capability. On the other hand, the IL-10-producing capability of spleen cells was not enhanced even by LPS and repeated challenges with Ni²⁺ and adjuvants.

Conclusion:

The solitary pre-sensitization to LPS is essential for the onset of Ni allergy by shifting the Th1/Th2 immune balance toward a Th1 dominant.

Allergy to Surgical Implants

Surgical implants have a wide array of therapeutic uses, most commonly in joint replacements, but also in repair of pes excavatum and spinal disorders, in cardiac devices (stents, patches, pacers, valves), in gynecological implants, and in dentistry. Many of the metals used are immunologically active, as are the methacrylates and epoxies used in conjunction with several of these devices. Allergic responses to surgical components can present atypically as failure of the device, with nonspecific symptoms of localized pain, swelling, warmth, loosening, instability, itching, or burning; localized rash is infrequent. Identification of the specific metal and cement components used in a particular implant can be difficult, but is crucial to guide testing and interpretation of results. Nickel, cobalt, and chromium remain the most common metals implicated in implant failure due to metal sensitization; methacrylate-based cements are also important contributors. This review will provide a guide on how to assess and interpret the clinical history, identify the components used in surgery, test for sensitization, and provide advice on possible solutions. Data on the pathways of metal-induced immune stimulation are included. In this setting, the allergist, the dermatologist, or both have the potential to significantly improve surgical outcomes and patient care.

Contact dermatitis: a practice parameter-update 2015

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which represents the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Contact Dermatitis: A Practice Parameter-Update 2015." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is changing and not all recommendations will be appropriate or applicable to all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including members serving on the Joint Task Force, are authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information or interpretation of this practice parameter by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by the pharmaceutical industry in drug development or promotion. Previously published practice parameters of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy & Immunology are available at http://www.JCAAI.org or http://www.allergyparameters.org.

Neurotoxicity of metals

Metals are frequently used in industry and represent a major source of toxin exposure for workers. For this reason governmental agencies regulate the amount of metal exposure permissible for worker safety. While essential metals serve physiologic roles, metals pose significant health risks upon acute and chronic exposure to high levels. The central nervous system is particularly vulnerable to metals. The brain readily accumulates metals, which under physiologic conditions are incorporated into essential metalloproteins required for neuronal health and energy homeostasis. Severe consequences can arise from circumstances of excess essential metals or exposure to toxic nonessential metal. Herein, we discuss sources of occupational metal exposure, metal homeostasis in the human body, susceptibility of the nervous system to metals, detoxification, detection of metals in biologic samples, and chelation therapeutic strategies. The neurologic pathology and physiology following aluminum, arsenic, lead, manganese, mercury, and trimethyltin exposures are highlighted as classic examples of metal-induced neurotoxicity.