Introduction
Allergic reactions are becoming prevalent in the general population and the materials used for dental filling, orthodontic instruments etc must satisfy the biocompatibility specifications since they are indicated for a long time in the oral cavity [1]. The first case of dental metal allergy occurred due to amalgam restorations in the oral cavity that resulted in stomatitis and dermatitis around the anus (Fleischmann 1928) [2]. The allergic reactions manifest in the form of urticaria, swelling, rash and rhinorrhea which can also cause life threatening conditions like laryngeal oedema, anaphylaxis and cardiac arrhythmias [3].
Contact allergy of the oral cavity is a T-cell-mediated (delayed) hypersensitivity reaction [3]. The clinical manifestations vary from burning, pain and dryness of mucosa to nonspecific stomatitis and cheilitis [1].
The dental materials suspected with biocompatibility issues are composites, latex gloves, local anaesthetic agents, endodontic materials, impression materials and metals. Now-a-days, due to globalization, liberalization and modernization of dentistry, we are using different dental materials easily available worldwide. However, underreporting of cases is seen in India and therefore individual sensitivity and population sensitivity of dental materials globally available should be considered.
Therefore, this article aims to-
Develop a systematic approach for the evaluation and monitoring of the severity of adverse reactions to dental materials available in the market,
Give an insight into the diagnosis and management of allergy to dental materials and
Can help dentists to become aware of incidence of allergy; thereby preventing the progression of these allergies by early recognition and preventive strategies.
Materials and Methods
A systematic review according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist (http://www.prisma-statement.org/2.1.2%20-%20PRISMA%202009%20Checklist.pdf) was performed. A backward search was also performed from the references of relevant studies. A MEDLINE search (PUBMED) of articles published was conducted to summarize the allergies to dental materials encountered in the dental office by the staff and students using the keywords mentioned in [Table/Fig-1].
Search strategy for articles included in the review
| Keywords | Searchresults | Excludedbased onabstract | Excludedbased onfull text | Articlesmanuallysearched | Included(total) |
|---|
| Allergies to composites | 35 | 32 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| MMA | 148 | 142 | 6 | 10 | 10 |
| Fissure sealant | 12 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mercury | 717 | 710 | 4 | 3 | 6 |
| Ni-Cr | 377 | 370 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| Titanium | 268 | 263 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Latex Gloves | 1206 | 16 | 1185 | 7 | 12 |
| Local anaesthesia | 738 | 730 | 8 | 5 | 5 |
| Formaldehyde | 1308 | 1288 | 20 | 6 | 6 |
| Zinc oxide Eugenol | 17 | 13 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Ledermix paste | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Sodium hypochlorite | 55 | 55 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Impression materials | 33 | 29 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Eligibility Criteria
Any case report or literature facts which were published in the English language only.
Description of allergies manifested with the dental materials were considered for inclusion. The abstracts searched were further screened for compliance with inclusion criteria and full text analyses were performed.
Case reports and literature facts reported from 1928 till 2014 were included in the search criteria.
Allergies reported to personal protective equipment like latex gloves were also included in the systematic review.
Two independent reviewers selected the studies for the systematic reviewing through each phasing of review-screening, eligibility criteria and inclusion criteria.
Results
The search of the term ‘allergic reactions to dental materials’ used revealed a list of 4919 articles. A total of 4895 articles were excluded based on analyses of abstracts and full texts. A total of 24 articles from the electronic search of the PUBMED database were included while manual search yielded 47 additional publications and the search strategy summarized was arranged in a tabular form as depicted in [Table/Fig-1].
Allergy to Resin Materials Composites
The maximum exposure concentrations during filling procedures formethyl methacrylate (MMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEG-DMA) was 0.4 mg/m3 for MMA, 45 μg/m3 for HEMA, 13 μg/m for EGDMA and 45 μg/m3 for TEG-DMA [4].
The dental personnel commonly complain of contact dermatitis and asthma caused by methacrylates. HEMA, EGDMA and TEG-DMA are responsible for occupational contact allergies [4].
A study was reported in which patients had lichenoid-like reactions of lips and patch testing revealed positive reaction to composite components. Antifungal treatment and replacement of existing restorations resulted in improvement [5].
Even though resin-based restorative materials are considered safe, their constituents can leach out and cause allergic contact stomatitis as reported in a patient with mild erythema in the gingiva and buccal mucosa [6,7]. In a study conducted to check patient’s reaction to patch testing, only 2 patients showed positive result with BISGMA [8].
Fisher recognized MMA monomer as the main cause of allergic dermatitis in dentists and dental laboratory technicians [9].
The prevalence of contact allergy to methyl methacrylate is 1% [10,11]. Different methods reduce the leachable substances from acrylic dentures such as immersing in hot water (50°C) for one hour prior to inserting into the oral cavity [12] or ultraviolet light [13]. A rare case of a patient with hypersensitivity reaction linked to denture wear has been reported [14].
Hence, optimum room ventilation is necessary and techniques should be employed to reduce patient and dentist exposure to MMA. Dentists must advise patients to avoid wearing dentures overnight, as it may cause mucosal irritation [15].
Fissure Sealant
Hallstrom U reported an isolated case in which adverse reactions like asthma and urticaria were reported after fissure sealant placement and the symptoms disappeared after its removal suggesting allergy [16].
Allergy to Mercury Associated with Amalgam Restoration
Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to amalgam restorations are seen as erythematous, pruritic lesions on the oral mucosa and skin of the face and neck. The common manifestations of these reactions are oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) [17]. Patch testing done in a study on 29 patients with oral lichen planus revealed that 10 patients showed an allergic reaction to mercury and on replacing the amalgam with composite or glass ionomer, the lesions resolved [18]. Another manifestation of allergy to mercury is burning mouth syndrome (BMS). A study conducted on a patient with BMS revealed positive patch test results and complete remission was achieved after the mercury filling was replaced [19]. The first step in recognizing allergy induced disease is a detailed history of the complaint and its clinical course. In 1976, the Council on Dental materials and devices advised using conventional amalgam condensers instead of ultrasonic amalgam condensers [20]. Air conditioners, proper ventilation of the operating rooms and proper handling of amalgam scraps under sulphide solution can avoid mercury vapor production [18].
Allergy to Metals Nickel-Chromium
Nickel is the common sensitizer amongst all metals [21]. Nickel was considered as one of the causes of allergic contact dermatitis in women by Fisher [22]. In 1889, Goldman reported the first case of Nickel dermatitis characterized by sensitivity to nickel compounds [23]. The incidence of nickel allergy is 0.1-0.2% [24]. Overall, nickel sensitivity is more common in women (4-10 times) than men [25] whereas, chromium allergy is rare (10% in males and 3% in females) [26]. The clinical signs and symptoms of nickel allergy include burning sensation, gingival hyperplasia, numbness on sides of tongue and the final diagnosis is confirmed by patch test using 5% nickel sulphate in petroleum jelly [27]. In sensitized individuals, nickel exposure leads to systemic allergic contact dermatitis [28].
If the diagnosis of nickel hypersensitivity is established, the Ni-Ti arch wire should be replaced with stainless steel wire or titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA) [27]. It was observed that orthodontic treatment with stainless steel appliances did not initiate hypersensitivity reaction [29,30]. A case reported by J Noble et al., showed relief of anaesthetic like feeling in a patient after replacement of NiTi wires [27]. The commonly used non-nickel containing orthodontic brackets include ceramic brackets, polycarbonate brackets and gold brackets [27].
Sensitivity to nickel was observed in children treated with old generation SSCs (72% nickel) while on replacing them with new generation SSC (9-12% nickel), no sensitivity was seen [31,32]. Invitro nickel leaching from orthodontic materials, space maintainers and arch wires is maximum within the first week and then declines [33]. Nickel allergy is frequently associated with chromium and cobalt reactivity. Duarte patch tested 1208 patients with contact dermatitis and found that 18.5% had positive reactions to two or three metals [34].
Titanium
The first case of delayed hypersensitivity reaction to titanium in the form of local granulomatous reaction was described in patients wearing cardiac pacemakers [35,36]. Titanium allergy has a low prevalence rate of 0.6% [37] and presents with urticaria, eczema, redness of the mucosa [38,39]. Another case was reported in which patient had eczema on the face after placement of titanium implants in the mandible [40]. More reports were published in which de-keratinized hyperplastic reactions of the peri-implant tissues and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome suggestive of titanium allergy were observed in association with titanium implants [41,42].
Recently, 56 patients developed severe health problems (muscle and joint pain, chronic fatigue syndrome) after receiving titanium dental implants, orthodontic braces or endoprostheses [43]. In a prospective study monitoring 1500 patients with dental implants over a three-year period, titanium allergy appeared following implant placement [37].
It was observed that presence of elements in titanium alloys could cause allergic reactions in dental implant patients such as beryllium (Be), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr) [44,45]. Patch tests have limited use due to poor sensitivity [46] and the test validated to detect titanium sensitization is MELISA test [43]. Alternate substitutes like Polytheretherketone (PEEK) which offer mechanical properties and bone forming capacity similar to titanium are also under investigation [47].
Allergy to Latex Gloves
Nutter reported first case of latex allergy in 1979 [48]. The frequent risk of population for latex allergy includes children with spina bifida (highest risk), patients who underwent surgery before one year of age, latex-fruit syndrome (allergy to various fruits) and healthcare workers (second highest risk) (Kean T) [49] who have higher risk of latex allergy due to sweating and multiple glove changing [48,50,51].
The prevalence of latex allergy in general population is less than 1% [52]. The allergic reactions to latex vary from stomatitis to airway compromise [53] and are reported in 3.8% population [54]. Blinkhorn and Leggate reported a case of angioneurotic edema in a boy due to dental rubber dam. Smart et al., also described three cases of patients with delayed hypersensitivity to rubber [55].
There is no “gold standard” for diagnosing latex allergy as no test is 100% accurate [56]. The diagnostic algorithm for latex allergy includes obtaining medical history, skin patch testing for type IV delayed hypersensitivity; measurement of serum IgE for type I immediate hypersensitivity and glove testing when patient’s history is not correlating with IgE results [57–59].
The American society of Anaesthesiologists Task Force of Latex Sensitivity recommends patients who have latex allergy to undergo surgical procedures in the morning [50]. The manufacturers of NRL gloves should mention protein levels of gloves on package labels as directed by FDA [60].
Allergy to Local Anaesthetics
Although LA are well-tolerated drugs, they precipitate adverse reactions which are related to LA [61,62], doses (toxic reaction or overdosage) [63] or psychogenic factors. Adverse reactions are reported of lignocaine [64], prilocaine [65] mepivacaine [66] or to their components like methylparaben [67] or metabisulphite [68]. The causes of allergic reactions are psychogenic or intravascular injections [69].
Most sensitization reactions are attributed to ester anaesthetics as one of the breakdown products is the antigenicagent p-aminobenzoic acid [70]. Allergic reactions are reported by local anaesthetics including esters and amides [71–77].
A prospective study on patients who received local anaesthesia during dental procedures showed that 25 adverse reactions diagnosed were psychogenic or vasovagal [78]. The most common adverse reaction is syncope (vasovagal type) [79]. The incidence of anaphylaxis is, howeverr are (1 in 6000) [80].
It is important to distinguish true anaphylaxis from other causes of cardiovascular collapse. Hence, the serum-mast cell tryptase test confirms the anaphylactic nature of these reactions [81].
True allergy to LA can be identified with help of skin tests but if the nature of the skin reaction is unclear, challenge test is carried out in which the patient is ‘challenged’ by subcutaneous injection with graded doses of LA till the therapeutic dose [81]. In a study of 188 cases undergoing such a challenge, only two patients had a positive reaction [82]. There are three cases of death reported in literature; one with prilocaine combined with felypressin; another with lignocaine alone and third with prilocaine combined with adrenaline. In all these cases, the LA agent may be considered as a factor [81]. The management of adverse reactions with LA includes immediate treatment and active prevention. It is important to relieve fear and anxiety, use an aspirating syringe and inject slowly [83].
Allergy to Materials Used in Endodontics Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis [84]. It was reported that 40% -60% reactions were due to formaldehyde [85]. There is decrease in the formaldehyde sensitization sine 1980 due to textile finishing resins (release low amounts of formaldehyde) and reduced amount of formaldehyde (1%) used in aqueous patch test solutions [86]. The patients allergic to formaldehyde are usually women who develop eczema on the hands or face [87,88]. In the dental literature 28 patients with immediate symptoms to formaldehyde containing root canal compounds have been described [89]. The characteristic features of formaldehyde allergy are anaphylactic reaction [90] or shock [91] and generalized urticaria [89,92]. The most useful and diagnostic tool to determine formaldehyde allergy is the assessment of specific IgE antibodies to formaldehyde [92].
Allergy to Rootcanal Sealers and Obturating Materials
Generally, zinc oxide allergy is rare and only one case of a successful root canal treatment of a patient with zinc oxide allergy is reported [4]. Munaco et al., (1978) and Pascon & Spangberg (1990) reported that Gutta-percha is biocompatible; however, the high content of zinc oxide can contribute to its toxicity. Hence, recently a resin-based filling material (Resilon, Pentron Clinical Technologies, Walling ford, CT, USA) has been introduced as an alternative to gutta-percha which is composed of polyester, difunctional methacrylate resin, bioactive glass and a resin sealer. Studies have shown that resilon is biocompatible and a good alternative for patients allergic to zinc oxide-eugenol based dental materials [4]. Eugenol acts as a contact irritant and induces type IV hypersensitivity reactions and generalized anaphylactic symptoms [93]. Allergic reaction to eugenol was also reported in a patient with gingival inflammation in the mucosal area adjacent to metal-ceramic bridge [93]. Allergic contact stomatitis has also been reported when eugenol was used as a temporary restorative material and on replacement with glass inomer, the lesion healed [94].
Ledermix Paste
No allergy to ledermix paste is reported except for a single case in which a female experienced type I allergy in the form of urticaria, general malaise and fever when a mixture of ledermix paste and calcium hydroxide was used as an intracanal medicament and her symptoms subsided following flushing out of the Ledermix paste and re-dressing the canal with Ca(OH)2 [95].
Sodium Hypochlorite
Only couple of cases of hypersensitivity to NaOCl are reported in which hypersensitivity to household bleach was confirmed with skin patch tests [96].
Another case report of allergy to sodium hypochlorite is also documented. On irrigating the canals with same, patient had burning sensation and difficulty in breathing and was administered corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines and analgesics for symptomatic relief. After 15 days, positive skin scratch test was seen which confirmed allergy to 1% sodium hypochlorite [97].
Allergy to Impression Materials
Allergic reactions are reported to polyether impression materials which manifests as swelling, itching and redness. It was seen on patch testing that a component of the catalyst paste caused the allergy and on replacement of this component, no allergic reactions were observed [98,99]. Another retrospective study documented results of multiple allergy tests with polyether impression material and its components (between 2007 and 2009). The results of patch tests showed a positive reaction to mixed polyether impression materials, base paste or to the base component [100].
There is only a single allergic case reported in which a patient developed hypersensitivity reaction to polysulfide material in the form of redness, itching and oedema following secondary impression for upper and lower complete dentures and on treatment with topical corticosteroids (Betamethasone valerate ointment 0.1%) she recovered [101]. A retrospective case report of fatal anaphylactic shock to alginate impression material has also been documented [102]. Because of the isolated allergic cases reported to alginate and polysulphide materials, there is inconclusive evidence of the incidence of these reactions.
Discussion
During dental treatment, various materials are used which can have side effects on patients and dental staff; hence it is necessary to use them with caution.
In 2006, Khamaysi et al., conducted a research of allergens in dental practice which are related to contact reactions and observed that patch testing of 134 patients showed cheilitis and perioral dermatitis as the most common oral manifestations (25.6%) followed by burning mouth syndrome (15.7%), lichenoid reaction (14%) and orofacial granulomatosis (10.7%). The common contact allergens were sodium thiosulfate (14%), nickel sulfate (13.2%), mercury (9.9%), palladium chloride (7.4%) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (5.8%) [56].
According to Khamaysi et al.,, allergy to mercury did not contribute to oral lichenoid reactions. Although 35% of patients with lichenoid reaction were positive to mercury [56], positive reaction to mercury was also seen in patients with orofacial granulomatosis [57,103–105].
While dental patients exhibit symptoms mainly on the oral mucosa, dental staff usually has hand dermatitis. The most common cause of contact allergies in dental workers are metals, rubber, antimicrobial drugs, preservatives and methacrylates [56]. Studies in dental workers have shown the incidence of skin diseases to range from 30% to 50% [106,107]. Khamaysi et al., observed that dental workers with hand dermatitis have a high incidence of allergies to metals [56] while reports from Europe and USA suggest that the most common cause of allergies are gloves and dental restorative materials [108,109].
When a patient is suspected of allergy, a thorough history taking and clinical examination should be done. Prick method (prick test) and scratching of the skin (scratch test) are used to confirm immediate hypersensitivity while patch test confirms delayed hypersensitivity [110]. Patch testing should be done according to the criteria from the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) [2]. Patch testing includes the application of a specific allergen at a specific concentration in a particular vehicle which has the ability to induce a cutaneous inflammatory reaction when administered to a sensitized person. The results are then read at 48 and 72 hours and any skin reaction with erythema and papulovesicles is taken as positive [111]. For decades, the Lymphocyte Stimulation Test (LST) has been used for diagnosis of delayed hypersensitivity reaction [112]. But, MELISA (memory lymphocyte immuno-stimulation assay test) is used to measure the sensitization induced by metals [113,114].
After reviewing the literature, we found that dental personnel have higher risk of allergy from latex gloves while patients have increased risk from metals. Metal reactions can be caused by amalgam, base metal and precious metals. The symptoms are intra-oral lichenoid reactions or a burning sensation and/or swelling of the buccal mucosa. The dental material that causes most adverse reactions in patients is amalgam. The degree of adverse reactions ranges from mild to moderate which shows that adverse reactions are not life threatening except in rare cases.
Limitations
The current review is not devoid of inherent information bias limitations as it did not cover grey literature, non-English language articles and articles related to medical field.
Conclusion
The oral cavity is constantly exposed to sensitizing substances that cause allergic reactions and contributes to rise in healthcare expenditures annually. The 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. For establishing diagnosis, it is essential to obtain proper history related to allergy, clinical examination and confirmatory tests like patch tests and MELISA. Thus, due to rise in number of patients with allergies from different materials, the practicing dentists should be aware about the allergies documented to known materials and thus prevent allergic manifestations in the dental clinic.
[1]. Ditrichova D, Kapralova S, Tichy M, Ticha V, Dobesova J, Justova E, Oral lichenoid lesions and allergy to dental materials Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2007 151(2):333-39. [Google Scholar]
[2]. Fleischmann P, Zur Frage der Gefährlichkeit Kleinster Quecksilbermengen Dtsch Med Wochenscher 1928 54:304-07. [Google Scholar]
[3]. Karabucak B, Stoopler ET, Root canal treatment on a patient with zinc oxide allergy: a case report Int End J 2007 40(10):800-07. [Google Scholar]
[4]. Marquardt W, Seiss M, Hickel R, Reichl FX, Volatile methacrylates in dental practices J Adhes Dent 2009 11(2):101-07. [Google Scholar]
[5]. Blomgren J, Axéll T, Sandahl O, Jontell M, Adverse reactions in the oral mucosa associated with anterior composite restorations J Oral Pathol Med 1996 25(6):311-13. [Google Scholar]
[6]. Stoeva I, Kisselova A, Zekova M, Allergic contact stomatitis from bisphenol-A-glycidyldimethacrylate during application of composite restorations. A case report J IMAB-Ann Proc 2008 book 2:45-46. [Google Scholar]
[7]. Johns DA, Hemaraj S, Varoli RK, Allergic contact stomatitis from bisphenol-a-glycidyldimethacrylate during application of composite restorations: A case report Indian J Dent Res 2014 25(2):266-68. [Google Scholar]
[8]. 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 reactions patterns and possible screening allergens Contact Dermatitis 2006 55(4):219-26. [Google Scholar]
[9]. Pegum JS, Medhurst FA, Contact dermatitis from penetration of rubber gloves by acrylic monomer Br Med J 1971 2(5754):141-43. [Google Scholar]
[10]. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, North American Contact Dermatitis Group. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000 Am J Contact Dermat 2003 14(2):59-62. [Google Scholar]
[11]. Wetter DA, Davis MD, Yiannias JA, Cheng JF, Connolly SM, el- Azhary RA, Patch test results from the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group, 1998-2000 J Am Acad Dermatol 2005 53(3):416-21. [Google Scholar]
[12]. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Tajima K, Takagi N, Leaching and cytotoxicity of formaldehyde and methyl methacrylate from acrylic resin denture base materials J Prosthet Dent 1994 71(6):618-24. [Google Scholar]
[13]. Tsuchiya H, Yamada K, Akagiri M, Tajima K, Miyazaki T, Takagi N, Effect of an ultraviolet light-activated coating material on reduction of the leaching of methyl methacrylate and formaldehyde from denture acrylic resins Dent Mater J 1993 12(2):253-58. [Google Scholar]
[14]. Bolla SC, Gantha NS, Basha SR, Allergic Reaction to an Acrylic Denture - A Rare Case Report J Res Adv Dent 2014 3(2):185-88. [Google Scholar]
[15]. Leggat PA, Kedjarune U, Toxicity of methyl methacrylate in dentistry Int Dent J 2003 53(3):126-31. [Google Scholar]
[16]. Hallstrom U, Adverse reaction to a fissure sealant. Report of a case J Dent Child 1993 60(2):143-46. [Google Scholar]
[17]. Kal BI, Evcin O, Dundar N, Tezel H, Unal I, An unusual case of immediate hypersensitivity reaction associated with an amalgam restoration Br Dent J 2008 205(10):547-50. [Google Scholar]
[18]. Bains VK, Loomba K, Loomba A, Bains R, Mercury sensitisation: review, relevance and a clinical report Br Dent J 2008 205(7):373-78. [Google Scholar]
[19]. Pigatto PD, Guzzi G, Persichini P, Barbadillo S, Recovery from mercury-induced burning mouth syndrome due to mercury allergy Dermatitis 2004 15(2):75-77. [Google Scholar]
[20]. Recommendations in mercury hygiene J Am Dent Assoc 1976 92(6):1217 [Google Scholar]
[21]. Covington JS, McBride MA, Slagle WF, Disney AL, Quantization of nickel and beryllium leakage from base metal alloys J Prosthet Dent 1989 54(1):127-36. [Google Scholar]
[22]. Fisher A.A, Contact Dermatitis 2nd EdPhiladelphiaLea and Febiger:197 [Google Scholar]
[23]. Goldman L, Nickel Eczema Arch Dermatol Syphilol 1933 28:688-96. [Google Scholar]
[24]. Menne T, Quantitative aspects of nickel dermatitis: sensitization and eliciting threshold concentrations Sci Total Environ 1994 148(2-3):275-81. [Google Scholar]
[25]. Clayton TH, Wilkinson SM, Rawcliffe C, Pollock B, Clark SM, Allergic contact dermatitis in children: should pattern of dermatitis determine referral? A retrospective study of 500 children tested between 1995 and 2004 in one U.K. centre Br J Dermatol 2006 154(1):114-17. [Google Scholar]
[26]. Bishara SE, Barrett RD, Selim MI, Biodegradation of orthodontic appliances — Part II Changes in the blood level of Nickel Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993 103(2):115-19. [Google Scholar]
[27]. Noble J, Ahing SI, Karaiskos NE, Wiltshire WA, Nickel allergy and orthodontics, a review and report of two cases Br Dent J 2008 204(6):297-300. [Google Scholar]
[28]. Andersen KE, Hjorth N, Menné T, The baboon syndrome: systemically induced allergic contact dermatitis Contact Dermatitis 1984 10(2):97-100. [Google Scholar]
[29]. Jensen CS, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, Byrialsen K, Menné T, Release of nickel ions from stainless steel alloys used in dental braces and their patch test reactivity in nickel-sensitive individuals Contact Dermatitis 2003 48(6):300-04. [Google Scholar]
[30]. Janson GR, Dainesi EA, Consolaro A, Woodside DG, de Freitas MR, Nickel hypersensitivity reaction before, during, and after orthodontic therapy Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998 113(6):655-60. [Google Scholar]
[31]. Feasby WH, Ecclestone ER, Grainger RM, Nickel sensitivity in pediatric dental patients Pediatr Dent 1988 10(2):127-29. [Google Scholar]
[32]. Randall RC, Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature Pediatr Dent 2002 24(5):489-500. [Google Scholar]
[33]. Barrett RD, Bishara SE, Quinn JK, Biodegradation of orthodontic appliances. Part I. Biodegradation of nickel and chromium invitro Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993 103(1):8-14. [Google Scholar]
[34]. Duarte I, Amorim JR, Perázzio EF, Schmitz Junior R, Metal contact dermatitis: prevalence to nickel, cobalt and chromium An Bras Dermatol 2005 80(2):137-42. [Google Scholar]
[35]. Peeters MS, Schroeter AL, Van Hale HM, Broadbent JC, Pacemaker contact sensitivity Contact Dermatitis 1984 11(4):214-18. [Google Scholar]
[36]. Yamauchi R, Morita A, Tsuji T, Pacemaker dermatitis from titanium Contact Dermatitis 2000 42(1):52-3. [Google Scholar]
[37]. Sicilia A, Cuesta S, Coma G, Titanium allergy in dental implant patients: a clinical study on 1500 consecutive patients Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 19(8):823-35. [Google Scholar]
[38]. Hensten-Pettersen A, Casting alloys: side-effects Adv Dent Res 1992 6:38-43. [Google Scholar]
[39]. Lhotka CG, Szekeres T, Fritzer-Szekeres M, Are allergic reactions to skin clips associated with delayed wound healing? Am J Surg 1998 176(4):320-23. [Google Scholar]
[40]. Egusa H, Ko N, Shimazu T, Yatani H, Suspected association of an allergic reaction with titanium dental implants: a clinical report J Prosthet Dent 2008 100(5):344-47. [Google Scholar]
[41]. Mitchell DL, Synnott SA, Van Dercreek JA, Tissue reaction involving an intraoral skin graft and CP titanium abutments: a clinical report Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990 5(1):79-84. [Google Scholar]
[42]. Nawaz F, Wall BM, Drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome: suspected association with titanium bioprosthesis Am J Med Sci 2007 334(3):215-18. [Google Scholar]
[43]. Müller K, Valentine-Thon E, Hypersensitivity to titanium: clinical and laboratory evidence Neuroendocrinol Lett 2006 27(suppl 1):31-35. [Google Scholar]
[44]. Harloff T, Hönle W, Holzwarth U, Bader R, Yhomas P, Schuh A, Titanium allergy or not? “Impurity” of titanium implant materials Health 2010 2(4):306-10. [Google Scholar]
[45]. Forte G, Petrucci F, Bocca B, Metal allergens of growing significance: epidemiology, immunotoxicology, strategies for testing and prevention Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets 2008 7(3):145-62. [Google Scholar]
[46]. Okamura T, Morimoto M, Fukushima D, Yamane G, A skin patch test for the diagnosis of titanium allergy J Dent Res 1999 78(5):1135 [Google Scholar]
[47]. Sagomonyants KB, Jarman-Smith ML, Devine JN, Aronow MS, Gronowicz GA, The invitro response of human osteoblasts to polyetherether ketone (PEEK) substrates compared to commercially pure titanium Biomaterials 2008 29(11):1563-72. [Google Scholar]
[48]. Spina A, Levine HJ, Latex allergy: A review for the dental professional Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Rad Endod 1999 87(1):5-11. [Google Scholar]
[49]. Kean T, McNally M, Latex hypersensitivity: a closer look at considerations for dentistry J Can Dent Assoc 2009 75(4):279-82. [Google Scholar]
[50]. Nainar SM, Dental management of children with latex allergy Int J Paediatr Dent 2001 11(5):322-26. [Google Scholar]
[51]. Hamann CP, DePaola LG, Rodgers PA, Occupation-related allergies in dentistry J Am Dent Assoc 2005 136(4):500-10. [Google Scholar]
[52]. Tan BB, Lear JT, Watts J, Jones P, English JS, Perioperative collapse: prevalence of latex allergy in patients sensitive to anaesthetic agents Contact Dermatitis 1997 36(1):47-50. [Google Scholar]
[53]. Chin S, Ferguson J, Bajurnow T, Latex allergy in dentistry. Review and report of case presenting as a serious reaction to latex dental dam Aus Dent J 2004 49(3):146-48. [Google Scholar]
[54]. Rankin KV, Jones DL, Rees TD, Incidence of latex reactions in an adult dental patient population J Dent Res 1993 72:202Abstr 786 [Google Scholar]
[55]. Smart ER, Macleod RI, Lawrence CM, Allergic reactions to rubber gloves in dental patients: report of three cases Br Dent J 1992 172(12):445-47. [Google Scholar]
[56]. 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):216-18. [Google Scholar]
[57]. Woods J, Lambert S, Platts-Mills TA, Natural Rubber Latex Allergy: spectrum, diagnostic approach, and therapy J Emerg Med 1997 15(1):71-85. [Google Scholar]
[58]. Fisher AA, Contact urticaria and anaphylactoid reactions to corn starch surgical glove powder Contact Dermatitis 1987 16(4):224-25. [Google Scholar]
[59]. Wakelin SH, White IR, Natural rubber latex allergy Clin Exp Dermatol 1999 24(4):245-48. [Google Scholar]
[60]. Tomazic VJ, Adverse reactions to natural rubber latex. User facility Reporting Bulletin No.19 Spring 1997 :1-3. [Google Scholar]
[61]. Schatz M, Fung DL, Anaphylactoid and anaphylactic reactions due to anaesthetic agents Clin Rev Allergy 1986 4(2):215-18. [Google Scholar]
[62]. Eggleston ST, Lush LW, Understanding allergic reactions to local anaesthetics Ann Pharmacother 1996 30(7-8):851-57. [Google Scholar]
[63]. Chen AH, Toxicity and allergy to local anaesthesia J Calif Dent Assoc 1998 26(9):683-92. [Google Scholar]
[64]. Noble DS, Pierce GFM, Allergy to lignocaine. A case history Lancet 1961 281:1436 [Google Scholar]
[65]. Bateman PB, Multiple allergy to local anaesthetics including prilocaine J Med Aust 1974 2(12):449-52. [Google Scholar]
[66]. Johnson WT, De Stigter T, Hypersensitivity to procaine, tetracaine, mepivacaine and methylparaben: report of a case J Am Dent Assoc 1983 106(1):53-56. [Google Scholar]
[67]. Luebke NH, Walker JA, Discussion of sensitivity to preservatives in anaesthetics J Am Dent Assoc 1978 97(4):656-57. [Google Scholar]
[68]. Schwartz HJ, Sher TH, Bisulphite sensitivity manifesting as allergy to local dental anaesthesia J Allergy Clin Immunol 1985 75(4):525-27. [Google Scholar]
[69]. Rood JP, Adverse reaction to dental local anaesthetic injection — ‘allergy’ is not the cause Br Dent J 2000 189(7):380-84. [Google Scholar]
[70]. Canfield DW, Gage TW, A Guideline to Local Anaesthetic Allergy Testing Anaesth Prog 1987 34(5):157-63. [Google Scholar]
[71]. Schatz M, Adverse reactions to local anaesthetics Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 1992 12:585-609. [Google Scholar]
[72]. Schwartz HJ, Gilbert IA, Lenner KA, Metabisulfite sensitivity and local dental anaesthesia Ann Allergy 1989 62(2):83-86. [Google Scholar]
[73]. Bhole MV, Manson AL, Seneviratne SL, Misbah SA, IgE-mediated allergy to local anaesthetics: separating fact from perception: a UK perspective Br J Anaesth 2012 108(6):903-11. [Google Scholar]
[74]. Speca SJ, Boynes SG, Cuddy MA, Allergic reactions to local anaesthetic formulations Dent Clin North Am 2010 54(4):655-64. [Google Scholar]
[75]. Gall H, Kaufmann R, Kalveram CM, Adverse reactions to local anaesthetics: analysis of 197 cases J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996 97(4):933-37. [Google Scholar]
[76]. Gonzalez-Delgado P, Anton R, Soriano V, Zapater P, Niveiro E, Cross-reactivity among amide-type local anaesthetics in a case of allergy to mepivacaine J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2006 16(5):311-13. [Google Scholar]
[77]. Venemalm L, Degerbeck F, Smith W, IgE-mediated reaction to mepivacaine J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008 121(4):1058-59. [Google Scholar]
[78]. Baluga JC, Casamayou R, Carozzi E, López N, Anale R, Borges R, Allergy to local anaesthetics in dentistry. Myth or reality? Allergo lImmunopathol (Madr) 2002 30(1):14-19. [Google Scholar]
[79]. Giovannitti JA, Bennett CR, Assessment of allergy to local anaesthetics J Am Dent Assoc 1979 98(5):701-06. [Google Scholar]
[80]. Fasting S, Gisvold SE, Serious intraoperative problems: A five year review of 83,844 anaesthetics Can J Anaesth 2002 49(6):545-53. [Google Scholar]
[81]. Sambrook PJ, Smith W, Elijah J, Goss AN, Severe adverse reactions to dental local anaesthetics: systemic reactions Aust Dent J 2011 56(2):148-53. [Google Scholar]
[82]. Schatz M, Skin testing and incremental challenge in the evaluation of adverse reactions to local anaesthetics J Allergy ClinImmunol 1984 74(4 Pt 2):606-16. [Google Scholar]
[83]. Oral and Dental Expert Group. Therapeutic Guidelines: Oral and Dental. Version I. Melbourne: Therapeutics Guidelines Limited, 2007 [Google Scholar]
[84]. Latorre N, Silvestre JF, Monteagudo AF, Allergic Contact Dermatitis Caused by Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde Releasers Actas Dermosifiliogr 2011 102(2):86-97. [Google Scholar]
[85]. De Groot A, White IR, Flyvholm MA, Lensen G, Coenrads P-J, Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Part 2 Patch test relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy, experimental provocation tests, amount of formaldehyde released, and assessment of risk to consumers allergic to formaldehyde Contact Dermatitis 2010 62:18-31. [Google Scholar]
[86]. De Groot AC, Flyvholm MA, Formaldehyde-releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Contact allergy to formaldehyde and inventory of formaldehyde-releasers Contact Dermatitis 2009 61:63-85. [Google Scholar]
[87]. Cronin E, Formaldehyde is a significant allergen in women with hand eczema Contact Dermatitis 1991 25(5):276-82. [Google Scholar]
[88]. Agner T, Flyvholm MA, Menné T, Formaldehyde allergy: A follow-up study Am J Contact Dermat 1999 10(1):12-17. [Google Scholar]
[89]. Tas E, Pletscher M, Bircher AJ, IgE mediated urticaria from formaldehyde in a dental root canal compound J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2002 12(2):130-33. [Google Scholar]
[90]. Haïkel Y, Braun JJ, Zana H, Boukari A, de Blay F, Pauli G, Anaphylactic shock during endodontic treatment due to allergy to formaldehyde in a root canal sealant J Endod 2000 26(9):529-31. [Google Scholar]
[91]. Braun JJ, Zana H, Purohit A, Valfrey J, Scherer PH, HaBkel Y, Anaphylactic reactions to formaldehyde in root canal sealant after endodontic treatment: four cases of anaphylactic shock and three of generalized urticaria Allergy 2003 58(11):1210-15. [Google Scholar]
[92]. Kijima A, Nishino H, Umeda J, Kataoka Y, Type 1 allergy to formaldehyde in root canal sealant after dental treatment: two case reports and review of the literature Arerugi 2007 56(11):1397-402. [Google Scholar]
[93]. Silvestre JF, Albares MP, Blanes M, Pascual JC, Pastor N, Allergic contact gingivitis due to eugenol present in a restorative dental material Contact Dermatitis 2005 52(6):341 [Google Scholar]
[94]. Deshpande A, Verma S, Macwan C, Allergic Reaction Associated with the use of Eugenol Containing Dental Cement in a Young Child Austin J Dent 2014 1(2):1007 [Google Scholar]
[95]. Kaufman AY, Solomonov M, Galieva D, Abbott PV, Allergic reaction to the tetracycline component of Ledermix paste: a case report Int Endod J 2014 47(11):1090-97. [Google Scholar]
[96]. Kaufman AY, Keila S, Hypersensitivity to sodium hypochlorite J Endod 1989 15(5):224-26. [Google Scholar]
[97]. Calliskan MK, Turkun M, Alper S, Allergy to sodium hypochlorite during root canal therapy: a case report Int Endod J 1994 27(3):163-67. [Google Scholar]
[98]. Dahl BL, Tissue hypersensitivity to dental materials J Oral Rehabil 1978 5(2):117-20. [Google Scholar]
[99]. Batchelor JM, Todd PM, Allergic contact stomatitis caused by a polyether dental impression material Contact Dermatitis 2010 63(5):296-97. [Google Scholar]
[100]. Mittermuller P, Szeimies RM, Landthaler M, Schmalz G, A rare allergy to a polyether dental impression material Clin Oral Invest 2012 16(4):1111-16. [Google Scholar]
[101]. Mobeeriek AA, Eshiekh HA, Adverse effect of polysulphide impression material: Case report The Saudi dental journal 1998 10:86-88. [Google Scholar]
[102]. Gangemi S, Spagnolo EV, Cardia G, Minciullo PL, Fatal anaphylactic shock due to a dental impression material Int J Prosthodont 2009 22(1):33-34. [Google Scholar]
[103]. Armstrong DK, Biagioni P, Lamey PJ, Burrows D, Contact hypersensitivity in patients with orofacial granulomatosis Am J Contact Dermat 1997 8(1):35-38. [Google Scholar]
[104]. Guttman-Yassky E, Weltfriend S, Bergman R, Resolution of orofacial granulomatosis with amalgam removal J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2003 17(3):344-47. [Google Scholar]
[105]. Lazarov A, Kidron D, Tulchinsky Z, Minkow B, Contact orofacial granulomatosis caused by delayed hypersensitivity to gold and mercury J Am Acad Dermatol 2003 49(6):1117-20. [Google Scholar]
[106]. Kanerva L, Lahtinen A, Toikkanen J, Increase in occupational skin diseases of dental personnel Contact Dermatitis 1999 40:104-08. [Google Scholar]
[107]. Kanerva L, Alanko K, Estlander T, Statistics on occupational contact dermatitis from (meth)acrylates in dental personnel Contact Dermatitis 2000 42:175-76. [Google Scholar]
[108]. Alanko K, Susitaival P, Jolanki R, Kanerva L, Occupational skin diseases among dental nurses Contact Dermatitis 2004 50:77-82. [Google Scholar]
[109]. Hamann CP, Rodgers PA, Sullivan KM, Occupational allergens in dentistry Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2004 4(5):403-09. [Google Scholar]
[110]. Bakula A, Lugovic-Mihic L, Situm M, Turcin J, Sinkovic A, Contact Allergy in the mouth: Diversity of Clinical Presentations And Diagnosis Of Common Allergens Relevant To Dental Practice Acta Clin Croat 2011 50(4):553-61. [Google Scholar]
[111]. McParland H, Warnakulasuriya S, Oral lichenoid contact lesions to mercury and dental amalgam-A Review J Biomed Biotechnol 2012 2012:589569 [Google Scholar]
[112]. Stejskal J, Stejskal VDM, The role of metals in autoimmunity and the link to neuroendocrinology Neuro Endocrinol Lett 1999 20(6):351-64. [Google Scholar]
[113]. Stejskal V, MELISA - An in vitro tool for the study of metal allergy ToxicolIn Vitro 1994 8(5):991-1000. [Google Scholar]
[114]. Strejskal VDM, Danersund A, Lindvall A, Hudecek R, Metal-specific lymphocytes: biomarkers of sensitivity in man Neuroendocrinol Lett 1999 20(5):289-98. [Google Scholar]