Oral induction of immunological tolerance to chromium in the guinea pig

Immunotherapy of allergic contact dermatitis

The term 'immunotherapy' refers to treating diseases by inducing, enhancing or suppressing immune responses. As allergy is an excessive, detrimental immune reaction to otherwise harmless environmental substances, immunotherapy of allergic disease is aimed at the induction of tolerance toward sensitizing antigens. This article focuses on the historical developments, present state and future outlook for immunotherapy with haptens as a therapeutic modality for allergic contact dermatitis. Inspired by the effectiveness of immunotherapy in respiratory allergies, attempts were undertaken at curing allergic contact dermatitis by means of controlled administration of the sensitizing haptens. Animal and human experiments confirmed that tolerance to haptens can be induced most effectively when the induction of tolerance precedes attempted sensitization. In real life, however, therapy is sought by people who are already sensitized and an effective reversal of hypersensitivity seems more difficult to achieve. Decades of research on Rhus hypersensitivity led to a conclusion that immunotherapy can suppress Rhus dermatitis, however, only to a limited degree, for a short period of time, and at a high risk of side effects, which makes this method therapeutically unprofitable. Methodological problems with most available studies of immunotherapy of contact allergy to nickel make any definite conclusions impossible at this stage.

Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys: a review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Dental casting alloys are widely used in applications that place them into contact with oral tissues for many years. With the development of new dental alloys over the past 15 years, many questions remain about their biologic safety. Practitioners must choose among hundreds of alloy compositions, often without regard to biologic properties.

PURPOSE

This article is an evidence-based tutorial for clinicians. Concepts and current issues relevant to the biologic effects of dental casting alloys are presented.

SUMMARY

The single most relevant property of a casting alloy to its biologic safety is its corrosion. Systemic and local toxicity, allergy, and carcinogenicity all result from elements in the alloy being released into the mouth during corrosion. Little evidence supports concerns of casting alloys causing systemic toxicity. The occurrence of local toxic effects (adjacent to the alloy) is not well documented, but is a higher risk, primarily because local tissues are exposed to much higher concentrations of released metal ions. Several elements such as nickel and cobalt have relatively high potential to cause allergy, but the true risk of using alloys containing these elements remains undefined. Prudence dictates that alloys containing these elements be avoided if possible. Several elements in casting alloys are known mutagens, and a few such as beryllium and cadmium are known carcinogens in different chemical forms. Despite these facts, carcinogenic effects from dental casting alloys have not been demonstrated. Prudent practitioners should avoid alloys containing these known carcinogens.

CONCLUSION

To minimize biologic risks, dentists should select alloys that have the lowest release of elements (lowest corrosion). This goal can be achieved by using high-noble or noble alloys with single-phase microstructures. However, there are exceptions to this generality, and selection of an alloy should be made on a case-by-case basis using corrosion and biologic data from dental manufacturers.

Persistent immune tolerance to nickel and chromium by oral administration prior to cutaneous sensitization

Oral administration of allergens, foreign proteins, or cell-bound antigens may induce systemic suppression of subsequent humoral and cell-mediated immune responses ("oral tolerance"). The induction of specific immune tolerance provides a potential strategy for treatment of T-cell-dependent immune diseases. Therefore, in depth studies into preconditions for optimal and persistent tolerance induction are mandatory. Here we report on such studies in a guinea pig model using the non-cross-reactive contact allergens nickel and chromium. Feeding per os of nickel sulfate or potassium dichromate did not trigger systemic TDTH-effector functions. Instead, short feeding periods led to a dose-dependent, and metal-specific, suppression of subsequently induced allergic contact hypersensitivity. Administration of the allergens onto the oral mucosa was most effective in the induction of immune tolerance. When first sensitizing attempts were delayed until 1 year after feeding, the degree of unresponsiveness was reduced. In contrast, with cutaneous contacts starting shortly after the feeding period, tolerance was fully stable and undiminished for at least 2 years. Thus, in orally treated guinea pigs cutaneous contacts provide boosting tolerogenic signals, supporting the view that oral tolerance does not result from clonal deletion but from active antigen-specific immunosuppression. Indeed, unresponsiveness to cutaneous immunization could be transferred by lymphoid cells from fed guinea pigs in a metal-specific way.

Casting alloys: side-effects

Side-effects from dental materials are a minor problem, but should be recognized. In recent questionnaire surveys about side-effects, the incidence was estimated to be 1:300 in periodontics and 1:2600 in pedodontics. None of these reactions was related to dental casting alloys. In prosthodontics, the incidence was calculated to be about 1:400, and about 27% were related to base-metal alloys for removable partial dentures (cobalt, chromium, nickel) and to noble/gold-based alloys for porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations. The complaints consisted of intra-oral reactions (such as redness, swelling, and pain of the oral mucosa and lips), oral/gingival lichenoid reactions, and a few instances of systemic reactions. In orthodontics, the incidence was 1:100, and most reactions (85%) were related to metal parts of the extra-oral anchorage devices. Even though the extensive use of base-metal alloys has been of major concern to the dental profession, relatively few case reports substantiate this concern. Allergy to gold-based dental restorations has been more commonly reported. Palladium-based alloys have been associated with several cases of stomatitis and oral lichenoid reactions. Palladium allergy seems to occur mainly in patients who are very sensitive to nickel. All casting alloys, except titanium, seem to have a potential for eliciting adverse reactions in individual hypersensitive patients. Tolerance induction may be a possible benefit of the use of intra-orally placed alloys. In non-sensitized individuals, oral antigenic contacts to nickel and chromium may induce tolerance rather than sensitization. A variety of systemic diseases and reactions has been claimed to be caused by dental materials. The claims are generally poorly documented.

Metal release from arch bars used in maxillofacial surgery. An in vitro study

Surgical arch bars (splints) are used in maxillofacial surgery as an aid to intermaxillary fixation procedures. Two different types of stainless steel arch bars, a solid bar and a silver-brazed bar, were studied with regard to metal release in vitro. Arch bars were ligated to jaw models and immersed in 0.9% saline solution. The electrolyte was analyzed for Ni, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Cd by atomic absorption spectrophotometry on days 3, 10, and 28. The amounts of metal released from the brazed arch bar were 140-600 times higher than those released from the solid arch bar. Clinical implications are suggested.