Frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients.
(meth)acrylates
European baseline series
allergic contact dermatitis
clinical relevance
contact allergy
dental patients
dental series
fragrances
metals
oral complaints
Journal
Contact dermatitis
ISSN: 1600-0536
Titre abrégé: Contact Dermatitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7604950
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Jan 2024
Historique:
revised:
27
08
2023
received:
12
03
2023
accepted:
29
09
2023
pubmed:
13
10
2023
medline:
13
10
2023
entrez:
12
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. To determine the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in patients with intra- and perioral complaints. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
OBJECTIVE
To determine the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in patients with intra- and perioral complaints.
METHODS
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
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
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
66-73Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Isaksson M, Rustemeyer T, Antelmi A. Contact allergy to dental materials and implants. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin JP, Frosch PJ, eds. Contact Dermatitis. Springer; 2020.
Kanerva L, Rantanen T, Aalto-Korte K, et al. A multicenter study of patch test reactions with dental screening series. Am J Contact Dermat. 2001;12(2):83-87.
European Parliament Regulation (EU). 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the council of 17 may 2017 on mercury, and repealing regulation (EC) No 1102/2008. Official Journal of the European Union. 2017;60(L137):1-3.
Goon AT, Isaksson M, Zimerson E, Goh CL, Bruze M. Contact allergy to (meth)acrylates in the dental series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(4):219-226.
Warshaw EM, Ruggiero JL, Atwater AR, et al. Occupational contact dermatitis in dental personnel: a retrospective analysis of the north American contact dermatitis group data, 2001 to 2018. Dermatitis. 2022;33(1):80-90.
Lugovic-Mihic L, Fercek I, Duvancic T, et al. Occupational contact dermatitis amongst dentists and dental technicians. Acta Clin Croat. 2016;55(2):293-300.
Rustemeyer T, Frosch PJ. Occupational skin diseases in dental laboratory technicians. (I). Clinical picture and causative factors. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34(2):125-133.
Olms C, Yahiaoui-Doktor M, Remmerbach TW. Contact allergies to dental materials. Swiss Dent J. 2019;129(7-8):571-579.
Maeno M, Tamagawa-Mineoka R, Arakawa Y, Masuda K, Adachi T, Katoh N. Metal patch testing in patients with oral symptoms. J Dermatol. 2021;48(1):85-87.
Kirshen C, Pratt M. Dental allergic contact dermatitis: an interesting case series and review of the literature. Dermatitis. 2012;23(5):222-226.
Rai R, Dinakar D, Kurian SS, Bindoo YA. Investigation of contact allergy to dental materials by patch testing. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2014;5(3):282-286.
Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing-recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(4):195-221.
Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B, et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 1970;50(4):287-292.
Khamaysi Z, Bergman R, Weltfriend S. Positive patch test reactions to allergens of the dental series and the relation to the clinical presentations. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(4):216-218.
Muris J, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ, Rustemeyer T. Sodium tetrachloropalladate (Na2[PdCl4]) as an improved test salt for palladium allergy patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58(1):42-46.
Gawkrodger DJ. Investigation of reactions to dental materials. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153(3):479-485.
Wataha JC, Hanks CT. Biological effects of palladium and risk of using palladium in dental casting alloys. J Oral Rehabil. 1996;23(5):309-320.
Muris J, Goossens A, Gonçalo M, et al. Sensitization to palladium and nickel in Europe and the relationship with oral disease and dental alloys. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72(5):286-296.
Hindsén M, Spirén A, Bruze M. Cross-reactivity between nickel and palladium demonstrated by systemic administration of nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53(1):2-8.
Kerosuo H, Kullaa A, Kerosuo E, Kanerva L, Hensten-Pettersen A. Nickel allergy in adolescents in relation to orthodontic treatment and piercing of ears. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;109(2):148-154.
Volkman KK, Inda MJ, Reichl PG, Zacharisen MC. Adverse reactions to orthodontic appliances in nickel-allergic patients. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2007;28(4):480-484.
Haberman AL, Pratt M, Storrs FJ. Contact dermatitis from beryllium in dental alloys. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28(3):157-162.
Torgerson RR, Davis MD, Bruce AJ, Farmer SA, Rogers RS 3rd. Contact allergy in oral disease. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(2):315-321.
Budimir J, Mravak-Stipetic M, Bulat V, Fercek I, Japundzic I, Lugovic-Mihic L. Allergic reactions in oral and perioral diseases-what do allergy skin test results show? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019;127(1):40-48.
Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Gefeller O. Group is. Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47(1):32-39.
Diepgen TL, Ofenloch RF, Bruze M, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(2):319-329.
Raap U, Stiesch M, Reh H, Kapp A, Werfel T. Investigation of contact allergy to dental metals in 206 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(6):339-343.
Thanyavuthi A, Boonchai W, Kasemsarn P. Amalgam contact allergy in Oral lichenoid lesions. Dermatitis. 2016;27(4):215-221.