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

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.

Use test with l-carvone in toothpaste on sensitized individuals

BACKGROUND

The mint flavour carvone (l-carvone) is considered a weak contact allergen. However, contact allergy to carvone is more prevalent in patients with oral lichen planus or oral lichenoid lesions (OLP/OLL).

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to investigate how carvone affects sensitized individuals through a use test with toothpaste containing carvone. Non-flavoured toothpaste served as control.

METHODS

Subjects were patch tested prior to the use test-14 subjects allergic to carvone (11 with OLP/OLL), 20 subjects with OLP/OLL and 3 healthy controls. The month-long use test comprised of using toothpaste twice daily. Subjects were examined fortnightly. Clinical signs were assessed with a mucosal scoring system. The subjects' oral health-related quality of life was measured with the oral health impact profile (OHIP-49).

RESULTS

Local reactions to the carvone toothpaste presented as aggravated OLL (7/10) and peri-oral eczema (2/10) in allergic subjects. They also had significantly higher mucosal and OHIP scores compared with those receiving non-flavoured toothpaste.

CONCLUSION

In sensitized individuals, oral exposure to carvone gives aggravated oral lesions and/or peri-oral eczema. The lesions mimic OLP and allergic individuals are therefore at risk of not being assessed with regard to flavour contact allergy.

Cross-Reactivity of Intraoral Allergic Contact Mucositis in the Nickel-Sensitized Ear Model of Metal Allergy

Cross-reactivity of metal allergies can make metal allergy treatment complicated because the background of immune response in cross-reactions remains unknown. In clinical settings, cross-reactivity among several metals has been suspected. However, the precise mechanism of immune response in cross-reactivity is unclear. Two sensitizations with nickel, palladium, and chromium plus lipopolysaccharide solution into the postauricular skin were followed by a single nickel, palladium, and chromium challenge of the oral mucosa to generate the intraoral metal contact allergy mouse model. Results showed that the infiltrating T cells in nickel-sensitized, palladium- or chromium-challenged mice expressed CD8+ cells, cytotoxic granules, and inflammation-related cytokines. Thus, nickel ear sensitization can cause cross-reactive intraoral metal allergy.

Factors Participating in the Occurrence of Inflammation of the Lips (Cheilitis) and Perioral Skin

Lip inflammation may manifest as mainly reversible cheilitis, mainly irreversible, or cheilitis connected to dermatoses or systemic diseases. Therefore, knowing a patient’s medical history is important, especially whether their lip lesions are temporary, recurrent, or persistent. Sometimes temporary contributing factors, such as climate and weather conditions, can be identified and avoided—exposure to extreme weather conditions (e.g., dry, hot, or windy climates) may cause or trigger lip inflammation. Emotional and psychological stress are also mentioned in the etiology of some lip inflammations (e.g., exfoliative cheilitis) and may be associated with nervous habits such as lip licking. To better manage cheilitis, it is also helpful to look for potential concomitant comorbidities and the presence of related diseases/conditions. Some forms of cheilitis accompany dermatologic or systemic diseases (lichen, pemphigus or pemphigoid, erythema multiforme, lupus, angioedema, xerostomia, etc.) that should be uncovered. Occasionally, lip lesions are persistent and involve histological changes: actinic cheilitis, granulomatous cheilitis, glandular cheilitis, and plasmacellular cheilitis. Perioral skin inflammation with simultaneous perioral dermatitis can have various causes: the use of corticosteroids and cosmetics, dysfunction of the skin’s epidermal barrier, a contact reaction to allergens or irritants (e.g., toothpaste, dental fillings), microorganisms (e.g., Demodex spp., Candida albicans, fusiform bacteria), hormonal changes, or an atopic predisposition. Epidermal barrier dysfunction can worsen perioral dermatitis lesions and can also be related to secondary vitamin or mineral deficiencies (e.g., zinc deficiency), occlusive emollient use, sunscreen use, or excessive exposure to environmental factors such as heat, wind, and ultraviolet light. Current trends in research are uncovering valuable information concerning the skin microbiome and disruption of the epidermal barrier of persons suffering from perioral dermatitis. Ultimately, an effective approach to patient management must take all these factors and new research into account.

A comprehensive summary of disease variants implicated in metal allergy

Allergic disease represents one of the most prominent global public health crises of the 21^st century. Although many different substances are known to produce hypersensitivity responses, metals constitute one of the major classes of allergens responsible for a disproportionately large segment of the total burden of disease associated with allergy. Some of the most prevalent forms of metal allergy - including allergic contact dermatitis - are well-recognized; however, to our knowledge, a comprehensive review of the many unique disease variants implicated in human cases of metal allergy is not available within the current scientific literature. Consequently, the main goal in composing this review was to (1) generate an up-to-date reference document containing this information to assist in the efforts of lab researchers, clinicians, regulatory toxicologists, industrial hygienists, and other scientists concerned with metal allergy and (2) identify knowledge gaps related to disease. Accordingly, an extensive review of the scientific literature was performed - from which, hundreds of publications describing cases of metal-specific allergic responses in human patients were identified, collected, and analyzed. The information obtained from these articles was then used to compile an exhaustive list of distinctive dermal/ocular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and systemic hypersensitivity responses associated with metal allergy. Each of these disease variants is discussed briefly within this review, wherein specific metals implicated in each response type are identified, underlying immunological mechanisms are summarized, and major clinical presentations of each reaction are described.Abbreviations: ACD: allergic contact dermatitis, AHR: airway hyperreactivity, ASIA: autoimmune/ autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, BAL: bronchoalveolar lavage, CBD: chronic beryllium disease, CTCL: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, CTL: cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte, DRESS: drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, GERD: gastro-esophageal reflux disease, GI: gastrointestinal, GIP: giant cell interstitial pneumonia, GM-CSF: granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, HMLD: hard metal lung disease, HMW: high molecular weight, IBS: irritable bowel syndrome, Ig: immunoglobulin, IL: interleukin, LMW: low molecular weight, PAP: pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, PPE: personal protective equipment, PRR: pathogen recognition receptor, SLE: systemic lupus erythematosus, SNAS: systemic nickel allergy syndrome, Th: helper T-cell, UC: ulcerative colitis, UV: ultraviolet.

Patch test-relevant concentrations of metal salts cause localized cytotoxicity, including apoptosis, in skin ex vivo

Background

Metal alloys containing contact sensitizers (nickel, palladium, titanium) are extensively used in medical devices, in particular dentistry and orthopaedic surgery. The skin patch test is used to test for metal allergy.

Objective

To determine whether metal salts, when applied to freshly excised skin at patch test–relevant concentrations and using a method which mimics skin patch testing, cause in changes in the epidermis and dermis.

Methods

Tissue histology, apoptosis, metabolic activity, and inflammatory cytokine release were determined for two nickel salts, two palladium salts, and four titanium salts.

Results

Patch test–relevant concentrations of all metal salts caused localized cytotoxicity. This was observed as epidermis separation at the basement membrane zone, formation of vacuoles, apoptotic nuclei, decreased metabolic activity, and (pro)inflammatory cytokine release. Nickel(II) sulfate hexahydrate, nickel(II) chloride hexahydrate, titanium(IV) bis(ammonium lactato)dihydroxide, and calcium titanate were highly cytotoxic. Palladium(II) chloride, sodium tetrachloropalladate(II), titanium(IV) isopropoxide, and titanium(IV) dioxide showed mild cytotoxicity.

Conclusion

The patch test in itself may be damaging to the skin of the patient being tested. These results need further verification with biopsies obtained during clinical patch testing. The future challenge is to remain above the elicitation threshold at noncytotoxic metal concentrations.

Titanium and Other Metal Hypersensitivity Diagnosed by MELISA® Test: Follow-Up Study

This study is aimed at proving the clinical benefit of the MELISA® test in the minimization or complete elimination of health problems in patients with confirmed hypersensitivity to metals used for tissue replacements. A group of 305 patients aged 20-75 years with previously proven metal hypersensitivity (initial MELISA® test), mainly to titanium and then to another fifteen metals, was chosen from the database at the Institute of Dental Medicine. From these patients, a final group of 42 patients agreed to participate in the study, 35 of which were female and 7 were male. The patients completed a special questionnaire aimed at information regarding change of health status from their last visit and determining whether the results of the initial MELISA® test and recommendations based on it were beneficial for patients or not. They were clinically examined, and peripheral blood samples were taken to perform follow-up MELISA® tests. Questionnaire data was processed, and the follow-up MELISA® test results were compared with the results of the initial MELISA® tests. For statistical analysis, the Fisher's exact test and paired T-test were used. Thirty-two patients reported that they followed the recommendations based on the results of the initial MELISA® tests, and of these, 30 patients (94%) confirmed significant health improvement. Six patients did not follow the recommendation, and from these, only one patient reported an improvement in his health problems. By comparison of the initial and follow-up MELISA® test results, it can be stated that the hypersensitivity to the given metal decreased or disappeared after the therapeutic interventions performed based on the initial MELISA® test results. The evaluation of the data obtained from patients in this study confirmed a significant clinical benefit of MELISA® test.

ASSESSMENT OF ALLERGIES TO FOOD AND ADDITIVES IN PATIENTS WITH ANGIOEDEMA, BURNING MOUTH SYNDROME, CHEILITIS, GINGIVOSTOMATITIS, ORAL LICHENOID REACTIONS, AND PERIORAL DERMATITIS

Oral cavity and perioral area are constantly exposed to a variety of antigens, including food and additives, which have a potential role in the development of different oral mucosal and perioral cutaneous diseases since they can cause hypersensitivity reactions. Oral and perioral diseases mainly include angioedema, burning mouth syndrome, cheilitis, gingivostomatitis, oral lichenoid reactions, and perioral dermatitis. Previous studies were focused on delayed-type oral allergies by performing patch testing but did not include tests for immediate-type allergic reactions. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine common nutritive and additive allergens in the prevalent oral and perioral diseases by using skin prick tests. Our study evaluated 230 participants, i.e. 180 patients with oral/perioral diseases (angioedema, burning mouth syndrome, cheilitis, gingivostomatitis, oral lichenoid reactions, and perioral dermatitis), and 50 healthy control subjects. The results of skin prick tests showed that immediate-type allergic reactions to food and additives were mostly seen in patients with burning mouth syndrome (40%) and cheilitis (33.3%), whereas allergies were least frequently observed in perioral dermatitis (10%) and gingivostomatitis (20%). Fruits, mushrooms, and vegetables were the most frequent causes of nutritive allergies in oral and perioral diseases. The most commonly identified additive allergens were glutaraldehyde, citric acid, and sodium glutamate. Study results suggest the possible association with nutritive and additive allergies be considered in cases of persistent oral mucosal or perioral skin disease accompanied by respective medical history.

Histopathologic Spectrum of Intraoral Irritant and Contact Hypersensitivity Reactions: A Series of 12 cases

BACKGROUND

Irritant contact stomatitis (ICS) and contact hypersensitivity stomatitis (CHS) are often caused by alcohol, flavoring agents and additives in dentifrices and foods, and contactants with high or low pH. A well-recognized contactant for ICS is Listerine™ mouthwash, while that for CHS is cinnamic aldehyde. However, many other flavoring agents and even smokeless tobacco are contactants that cause mucosal lesions that are entirely reversible. The objective of this study is to 1) present cases of ICS and CHS with a clear history of a contactant at the site and the histopathologic features of the resulting lesion and 2) define the histopathologic features that characterize such lesions.

METHODS

12 cases of ICS and CHS with known contactants that exhibited distinct histopathologic patterns were identified.

RESULTS

ICS are characterized by three patterns in increasing order of severity namely: 1) superficial desquamation, 2) superficial keratinocyte edema, and 3) keratinocyte coagulative necrosis with/out spongiosis and microabscesses. CHS is characterized by two patterns namely plasma cell stomatitis with an intense plasma cell infiltrate and a lymphohistiocytic infiltrate with or without non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation. Three patterns of the latter are recognized: (1) lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the interface with well-formed or loosely aggregated non-necrotizing granulomas; (2) lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the interface with peri- and para-vascular lymphohistiocytic nodules; and (3) lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the interface with peri- and para-vascular lymphohistiocytic nodules containing non-necrotizing granulomas. The same contactant may elicit ICS and CHS, while one histopathologic pattern may be brought on by various contactants.

CONCLUSION

ICS and CHS have distinct histologic patterns. Recognizing that these patterns are caused by contactants would help clinicians manage such mucosal lesions.

Patch test of dental materials in Oral Lichen Planus with considering the role of saliva

Lichen planus is the most common skin disease that affects the oral mucosa. Oral Lichen Planus is a T-cell-mediated autoimmune disorder. In the current study, for the first time, an oral cavity condition in skin patch tests with adding saliva is simulated. In addition, the patch results are compared with healthy subjects. Forty-one OLP patients and 63 healthy subjects were enrolled in the study. All participants were provided with patch tests, including allergens, in combination with saliva in chambers. Allergens from the European baseline (standard) series selected according to the most prevalent positive results in the previous study were applied. Positive results of Mercury and Cobalt tests were significantly higher in the case group. In this study, the differentiation of patients with lichen planus and lichenoid was identified according to the Van der Meij & Van der Waal criteria. The patch test was conducted for healthy individuals as well. The most important of all was the use of patients' saliva in the patch test, done for the first time in this field. In the case of OLP, a patch test can help identify positive reactions to dental materials; thus, the replacement of dental restorations may be needed.

[Manifestations of allergic reactions occurring at a dental appointment]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the data of modern scientific literature to conduct a study on identifying the true allergic reaction at a dental appointment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The article is based on the study of materials from domestic and foreign research databases eLibrary, PubMed, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. The research period is 15 years.

RESULTS

Among dental materials, the most common allergens are local anesthetics, metal alloys, components of composite materials, latex.

CONCLUSION

If allergy is suspected, it is necessary to carefully collect an anamnesis and conduct a clinical examination of the patient with the involvement of specialist doctors, with the recommendation of skin tests and test subcutaneous provocation.

Metal patch testing in patients with oral symptoms

The number of patients with metal allergies has increased recently, and patch testing is useful for investigating such patients. However, the efficacy of restoration removal in patients with oral metal allergies is disputed. This study aimed to investigate the relationships between oral symptoms and metal allergies. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 60 patients with oral symptoms. The most common oral symptom was an abnormal oral sensation. Thirty-eight percent of the patients exhibited positive allergic reactions to one or more metal. Nickel was the metal allergen that produced positive reactions most frequently. Of the seven patients whose restorations were removed, complete and partial remission were achieved in one and two patients, respectively. Interestingly, metal alloy removal was effective in 33% (n = 1) of the positive patch test group and 50% (n = 2) of the non-positive patch test group. Our results demonstrated the difficulty of predicting the efficacy of restoration removal at ameliorating oral metal allergies based on patch testing alone.

Oral Hypersensitivity Reactions

Allergic contact hypersensitivity reactions of the oral mucosa pose a significant medical concern for some patients. Oral hypersensitivity reactions can result from a vast number of allergenic chemicals, but occur commonly from dental materials, flavorings, and preservatives. Clinical presentation is varied and often overlaps with other oral conditions, complicating their diagnosis and management. The most common clinical entities associated with oral hypersensitivity reactions are oral lichenoid reactions and allergic contact cheilitis. In addition to reviewing these conditions and their most common corresponding allergens, this article summarizes the pathogenesis of oral hypersensitivity reactions and addresses patch testing pearls.

COMMON ALLERGIES AND ALLERGENS IN ORAL AND PERIORAL DISEASES

Allergic reactions sometimes participate in the development of perioral and oral diseases, indicating the need for appropriate allergen assessment. This review discusses current knowledge on the potential allergic reactions to different dental materials in patients with oral and perioral diseases. Aside from allergies to various dental materials, similar non-allergic, non-immune contact reactions (irritant or toxic) can occur. Among dental materials, the most frequent allergens are alloys, followed by rubber materials, polymers and acrylates. Allergic reactions to dental alloys that contain nickel, cobalt and amalgam are especially frequent since dentists use them for prosthetic and other restorations. There is a broad spectrum of clinical presentations of oral and perioral diseases possibly related to allergies, such as lichenoid reactions, cheilitis, perioral dermatitis, burning sensations, etc. Despite some limitations, patch test is crucial in the diagnosis and recognition of causative allergens because it reveals contact allergies, and is still superior in differentiating allergic and irritant contact reactions. It is important to examine patient medical histories (e.g., occurrence of symptoms after dental therapy or food consumption), and in consultation with their dentist, carry out allergy tests to specific dental allergens which are used or planned to be used in subsequent treatment.

Characterization of T cell receptors in a novel murine model of nickel-induced intraoral metal contact allergy

Nickel is a component of several alloy types that are widely used in our environment, including several dental alloy types that cause intraoral metal contact allergy. However, metal-specific immune responses in the oral mucosa have not been elucidated because a suitable animal model has not been established. In this study, we established a novel murine model of nickel-induced intraoral metal contact allergy and aimed to elucidate the immune response in terms of T-cell receptor repertoire and cytokine profiles in inflamed oral mucosa. The intraoral metal contact allergy model was induced by two sensitizations of nickel plus lipopolysaccharide solution into the postauricular skin followed by a single nickel challenge of the buccal mucosa. Cytokine expression profiles and T-cell phenotypes were determined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. T cells accumulated in the cervical lymph nodes and inflamed oral mucosa were characterized by analyzing their T-cell receptor α- and β-chain repertoires, and the nucleotide sequences of complementary determining region 3. Significant swelling and pathological features were histologically evident at 1 day after challenge in mice with nickel allergy. At 1 day after the challenge, CD8-positive T cells producing high levels of T helper 1 type cytokines had accumulated in the allergic oral mucosa. At 7 days after the challenge, excessive nickel allergy in the oral mucosa was suppressed by regulatory T cells. Characterization of the T-cell receptor repertoire in nickel allergic mice revealed the presence of natural killer T cells and T cells bearing Trav6-6-Traj57 at 1 day after the challenge. Our murine model of nickel-induced intraoral metal contact allergy showed that natural killer T cells and T cells bearing Trav6-6-Traj57 might be involved in the immune responses of nickel-induced intraoral metal contact allergy.

Five hundred patients reporting on adverse effects from dental materials: Frequencies, complaints, symptoms, allergies

OBJECTIVE

Information on patients with real or claimed adverse reactions towards dental materials in large patient cohorts is rare. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate patients reporting on complaints and symptoms to dental materials over a 16-year period.

METHODS

Five hundred patients were characterized by one single dental team regarding age and sex distribution, subjective complaints and objective intraoral symptoms, and allergy status relevant to dental materials.

RESULTS

Elder patients and females predominated. Subjective complaints were reported by 490 patients, ranging from 1 to 12 complaints per patient. Most often, burning mouth (44%), tooth-/jawache (22%) and dry mouth (20%) were reported. In 54% no objective intraoral symptom was diagnosed. The main objective intraoral symptoms were tongue anomalies (lingua plicata or geographica; 14%), gingivitis adjacent to restorations (12%), redness of the palate or the edentulous ridge (7%), oral lichen planus (6%), grayish discolorations, lichenoid contact lesions, and leukoplakia (<5%). Patch testing of 416 (83%) patients revealed that allergy was diagnosed as contributing to the complaints or symptoms in 70 (14%) patients with metals being the most frequent allergens. Gingivitis adjacent to restorations (3.2%), redness of the palate or edentulous ridge (1.4%) and whitish lichen-like lesions (1.8%) were associated to allergy from dental materials.

SIGNIFICANCE

The high number of subjective complaints per patient and their wide variety suggests that most patients seriously suffered. Furthermore, the fact that only 46% of the patients had objective intraoral symptoms demands for an interdisciplinary collaboration to elucidate other than dental causes.

Cross-sectional observational study exploring clinical risk of titanium allergy caused by dental implants

PURPOSE

Studies have reported cases of metal allergy caused by titanium-containing materials. We wished to clarify the relationship between titanium allergy and dental implants by describing patients who suffered allergic symptoms after they had received such implants.

METHODS

A total of 270 patients who visited a Dental Metal Allergy Clinic at Tokushima University Hospital from April 2010 to March 2014 were the study cohort. Patch testing with 28 types of metal allergens (including four titanium allergens) was undertaken for patients.

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients (80.4 %) exhibited allergy-positive reactions to at least one type of metal allergen. Mercury, palladium, chromium and nickel exhibited a higher prevalence of allergy-positive reactions than other metals. Sixteen patients visited our clinic suffering allergic symptoms after receiving dental implants. Eleven of those patients exhibited allergy-positive reactions for any of the metal allergens, and 4 of these patients had allergy-positive reactions against titanium allergens. The total number of allergy-positive reactions for titanium allergens among all 270 patients was 17 (6.3 %). No patient exhibited a positive reaction only for the titanium allergen.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of allergy-positive reactions for titanium allergens was lower than for other metal allergens. We suggest examination of pre-implant patients who have a history of hypersensitivity reactions to metals.

Proposed ICDRG Classification of the Clinical Presentation of Contact Allergy

The International Contact Dermatitis Research Group proposes a classification for the clinical presentation of contact allergy. The classification is based primarily on the mode of clinical presentation. The categories are direct exposure/contact dermatitis, mimicking or exacerbation of preexisting eczema, multifactorial dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis, by proxy, mimicking angioedema, airborne contact dermatitis, photo-induced contact dermatitis, systemic contact dermatitis, noneczematous contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, protein contact dermatitis, respiratory/mucosal symptoms, oral contact dermatitis, erythroderma/exfoliative dermatitis, minor forms of presentation, and extracutaneous manifestations.

Evaluation of monomer leaching from a resin cement through dentin by a novel model

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the elution of HEMA, BPA, UDMA and BisGMA from a conventional resin cement (Multilink Automix^®, Ivoclar Vivadent) through human dentin, under constant positive pulpal pressure.

METHODS

Ten human dentin disks (n=10) were adjusted in a new testing device and transparent glass slabs were luted with Multilink Automix^® resin cement, following manufacturer's instructions, under a steady pressure of 25N. The device was filled with Ringer's solution. At 5min, 20min, 1h, 2h, 21h, 3 days, 7 days, 10days and 21days time intervals, the whole eluate was retrieved from each one of the ten specimens and then, the specimens were refilled with fresh Ringer's solution. The eluates were analyzed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).

RESULTS

HEMA was detected in the eluate of all of the specimens, from 5min until 10 days. At four of the specimens, HEMA was also detected in the 21days eluate at very low concentrations. BPA, UDMA and BisGMA were not detected at any eluate. An unknown compound was also detected at 4.4min.

SIGNIFICANCE

The concentrations of HEMA that enabled to diffuse from Multilink Automix^® cement in an aqueous solution, through a dentin barrier, did not reach toxic levels and BPA, UDMA and BisGMA were not detected at all.

Unmet diagnostic needs in contact oral mucosal allergies

The oral mucosa including the lips is constantly exposed to several noxious stimuli, irritants and allergens. However, oral contact pathologies are not frequently seen because of the relative resistance of the oral mucosa to irritant agents and allergens due to anatomical and physiological factors. The spectrum of signs and symptoms of oral contact allergies (OCA) is broad and a large number of condition can be the clinical expression of OCA such as allergic contact stomatitis, allergic contact cheilitis, geographic tongue, oral lichenoid reactions, burning mouth syndrome. The main etiological factors causing OCA are dental materials, food and oral hygiene products, as they contain flavouring agents and preservatives. The personal medical history of the patient is helpful to perform a diagnosis, as a positive history for recent dental procedures. Sometimes histology is mandatory. When it cannot identify a direct cause of a substance, in both acute and chronic OCA, patch tests can play a pivotal role in the diagnosis. However, patch tests might have several pitfalls. Indeed, the presence of metal ions as haptens and specifically the differences in their concentrations in oral mucosa and in standard preparation for patch testing and in the differences in pH of the medium might result in either false positive/negative reactions or non-specific irritative reactions. Another limitation of patch test results is the difficulty to assess the clinical relevance of haptens contained in dental materials and only the removal of dental materials or the avoidance of other contactant and consequent improvement of the disease may demonstrate the haptens' responsibility. In conclusion, the wide spectrum of clinical presentations, the broad range of materials and allergens which can cause it, the difficult interpretation of patch-test results, the clinical relevance assessment of haptens found positive at patch test are the main factors that make sometimes difficult the diagnosis and the management of OCA that requires an interdisciplinary approach to the patient.

Mucosal Lesions in an Allergy Practice

The diagnosis and treatment of mucosal disease with an allergic pathogenesis are challenging. Oral allergy is often a hypersensitivity reaction with variable symptoms and physical exam findings. Clinical diagnosis requires a history of prior allergen exposure, a delay from exposure to clinical findings, and improvement following allergen removal. The past decades have seen great contributions to the field of oral allergy. The aim of this review is to provide an approach to the diagnosis and treatment of oral dermatologic disease with a focus on diseases with an investigated allergic pathogenesis.

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.

Dental prostheses mimic the natural enamel behavior under functional loading: A review article

Alumina- and zirconia-based ceramic dental restorations are designed to repair functionality as well as esthetics of the failed teeth. However, these materials exhibited several performance deficiencies such as fracture, poor esthetic properties of ceramic cores (particularly zirconia cores), and difficulty in accomplishing a strong ceramic–resin-based cement bond. Therefore, improving the mechanical properties of these ceramic materials is of great interest in a wide range of disciplines. Consequently, spatial gradients in surface composition and structure can improve the mechanical integrity of ceramic dental restorations. Thus, this article reviews the current status of the functionally graded dental prostheses inspired by the dentino-enamel junction (DEJ) structures and the linear gradation in Young's modulus of the DEJ, as a new material design approach, to improve the performance compared to traditional dental prostheses. This is a remarkable example of nature's ability to engineer functionally graded dental prostheses. The current article opens a new avenue for recent researches aimed at the further development of new ceramic dental restorations for improving their clinical durability.

Allergic Reactions to Dental Materials-A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing allergic reactions to the patient, technician and dentist. This review aims to develop a systematic approach for the selection and monitoring of dental materials available in the market thereby giving an insight to predict their risk of inducing allergic reactions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our data included 71 relevant articles which included 60 case reports, 8 prospective studies and 3 retrospective studies. The source of these articles was Pub Med search done with the following terms: allergies to impression materials, sodium hypochlorite, Ledermix paste, zinc oxide eugenol, formaldehyde, Latex gloves, Methyl methacrylate, fissure sealant, composites, mercury, Nickel-chromium, Titanium, polishing paste and local anaesthesia. All the relevant articles and their references were analysed. The clinical manifestations of allergy to different dental materials based on different case reports were reviewed.

RESULTS

After reviewing the literature, we found that the dental material reported to cause most adverse reactions in patients is amalgam and the incidence of oral lichenoid reactions adjacent to amalgam restorations occur more often than other dental materials.

CONCLUSION

The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are allergies to latex, acrylates and formaldehyde. While polymethylmethacrylates and latex trigger delayed hypersensitivity reactions, sodium metabisulphite and nickel cause immediate reactions. Over the last few years, due to the rise in number of patients with allergies from different materials, the practicing dentists should have knowledge about documented allergies to known materials and thus avoid such allergic manifestations in the dental clinic.

Patch Testing with Dental Screening Series in Oral Disease

Background

The oral mucosa is constantly exposed to several irritants and allergens including dental materials, but the role of contact allergy in oral disease is obscure.

Objective

To analyze positive patch test results in patients with oral diseases and evaluate the clinical relevance of oral diseases with contact allergy to dental materials.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patch test results with dental screening series in 44 patients with oral disease from 2004~2011.

Results

Oral diseases included oral lichen planus (54.5%), cheilitis (27.3%), burning mouth syndrome (9.1%), and others (9.1%). Thirty-one of 44 patients (70.5%) had positive reactions to one or more allergens. The most commonly detected allergens were gold sodium thiosulfate (25.0%) and nickel sulfate (25.0%), followed by potassium dichromate (22.7%), cobalt (15.9%), palladium (6.8%), mercury (4.5%), copper (4.5%), and methylhydroquinone (4.5%). Six of 24 patients with oral lichen planus had a symptom in areas adjacent to dental materials and positive patch test reactions to allergens contained in the suspected dental materials.

Conclusion

Patch tests with dental screening series are worth considering for oral diseases, especially for oral lichen planus.

Investigation of contact allergy to dental materials by patch testing

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.

Systemic contact dermatitis and allergy to biomedical devices

Systemic contact dermatitis (SCD) refers to a skin condition where an individual who is cutaneously sensitized to an allergen will subsequently react to that same allergen or a cross-reacting allergen via the systemic route. It occurs to allergens including metals, medications, and foods. There has been recent interest in metal allergy as it relates to the implantation of devices such as orthopedic, dental, cardiac, and gynecologic implants. This review will briefly address all causes of systemic contact dermatitis with a special and expanded focus on metal implant allergy. We present literature on SCD to various metal biomedical devices, patch testing for diagnosis of metal allergy pre and post implantation and treatment.

Establishment of toxic metal reference range in tobacco from US cigarettes

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. There are numerous harmful substances in tobacco and tobacco smoke. Among the more than 4,000 identified compounds in smoke, many metals contribute to the health risks associated with tobacco use. Specific metals found in tobacco and tobacco smoke have been classified as carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Exposure to toxic metals can cause outcomes including inflammation, sensitization and carcinogenesis. Metals in tobacco are transported in tobacco smoke proportionally with their concentrations in tobacco filler for a given cigarette design. To quantitatively examine the metal content in numerous tobacco products, high throughput methods are desired. This study developed a simple, rapid tobacco digestion method coupled with a sensitive analytical method using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. Because of known memory effects and volatility of mercury, quantitative determinations of mercury were made with a direct combustion analyzer. The methods were utilized to examine arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel contents in cigarette tobacco and to establish a reference range for the metals in 50 varieties of cigarettes available in the US. These results are comparable to the limited data sets reported by others and with available standard reference material values.

Photoletter to the editor: Exfoliative cheilitis associated with titanium dental implants and mercury amalgam

Exfoliative cheilitis is an uncommon chronic inflammatory condition that generally affects the vermilion of the lips. Its cause is still largely unknown an there is no effective treatment. Here we report of a case of exfoliative cheilitis possibly caused by mercury-containing dental amalgam in close proximity to dental titanium implant in a 41-year-old woman. By patch-testing, she was tested positive to thimerosal, palladium, gold, nickel, and copper. There was a strong temporal relation between last titanium dental implant and the onset of exfoliative cheilitis. Clinicians should be aware that exfoliative cheilitis might be associated with an allergy to intraoral dental metals and that titanium dental implant should not be implanted in the vicinity of the mercury-containing dental amalgam filling, even in presence of mercury amalgam as rootend filling material.

Determination of susceptibility to sensitization to dental materials in atopic and non-atopic patients

Introduction: Some studies report that atopic patients have a greater frequency of delayed-type sensitization than non-atopic patients. Objective: To determine the influence of the atopic condition on delayed sensitization to dental materials. Design: cross-sectional study. Methods: Forty (40) atopic subjects and forty (40) non-atopic subjects, of both sexes, between 20 and 65 years of age were included. The determination of delayed sensitization to dental materials was performed using patch test. An oral exam was also carried out to check for lesions of the oral mucosa. Results: 61.25% of the patients were positive for delayed-type sensitization to one or more allergens, being palladium chloride (21.25%), ammoniated mercury (20%), benzoyl peroxide (12.5%) and amalgam (10%) the most frequent. The frequency of sensitization was 67.5% in the group of atopic patients, compared to 55% in the non atopic group (p>0.05). The materials with the greatest difference of sensitization in atopic compared to non-atopic patients were ammoniated mercury, benzoyl peroxide, amalgam and Bisphenol A Dimethacrylate (BIS-GMA). Conclusion: The atopic condition is not related to a higher frequency of delayed sensitization to a battery of dental materials.

Key words: Patch test, delayed-type sensitization, allergy contact, atopia, dental materials.

Toxic elements in tobacco and in cigarette smoke: inflammation and sensitization

Biochemically and pathologically, there is strong evidence for both atopic and nonatopic airway sensitization, hyperresponsiveness, and inflammation as a consequence of exposure to tobacco mainstream or sidestream smoke particulate. There is growing evidence for the relation between exposure to mainstream and sidestream smoke and diseases resulting from reactive oxidant challenge and inflammation directly as a consequence of the combined activity of neutrophils, macrophages, dendritic cells, eosinophils, basophils, as a humoral immunological consequence of sensitization, and that the metal components of the particulate play a role in adjuvant effects. As an end consequence, carcinogenicity is a known outcome of chronic inflammation. Smokeless tobacco has been evaluated by the IARC as a group 1 carcinogen. Of the many harmful constituents in smokeless tobacco, oral tissue metallothionein gradients suggest that metals contribute to the toxicity from smokeless tobacco use and possibly sensitization. This work reviews and examines work on probable contributions of toxic metals from tobacco and smoke to pathology observed as a consequence of smoking and the use of smokeless tobacco.

Review article: cinnamon- and benzoate-free diet as a primary treatment for orofacial granulomatosis

BACKGROUND

Orofacial granulomatosis is a rare chronic granulomatous inflammatory disease of the lips, face and mouth. The aetiology remains unclear but may involve an allergic component. Improvements have been reported with cinnamon- and benzoate-free diets.

AIMS

To explore the prevalence of compound and food sensitivity and examine the dietary treatments used in orofacial granulomatosis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was carried out and relevant studies from January 1933 to January 2010 were identified using the electronic database search engines; AGRIS 1991-2008, AMED 1985-2008, British Nursing and Index archive 1985-2008, EMBASE 1980-2008, evidence based medicine review databases (e.g. Cochrane DSR), International Pharmaceutical and Medline 1950-2008.

RESULTS

Common sensitivities identified, predominantly through patch testing, were to benzoic acid (36%) food additives (33%), perfumes and flavourings (28%), cinnamaldehyde (27%), cinnamon (17%), benzoates (17%) and chocolate (11%). The cinnamon- and benzoate-free diet has been shown to provide benefit in 54-78% of patients with 23% requiring no adjunctive therapies. A negative or positive patch test result to cinnamaldehyde, and benzoates did not predict dietary outcome. The most concentrated source of benzoate exposure is from food preservatives. Use of liquid enteral formulas can offer a further dietary therapy, particularly in children with orofacial granulomatosis.

CONCLUSION

Management of orofacial granulomatosis is challenging but cinnamon- and benzoate-free diets appear to have a definite role to play.