Biomedical Papers, 2007 (vol. 151), issue 2

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2007, 151(2):333-339 | 10.5507/bp.2007.057

ORAL LICHENOID LESIONS AND ALLERGY TO DENTAL MATERIALS

Dagmar Ditrichovaa, Simona Kapralovab, Martin Tichya, Vlastislava Tichac, Jitka Dobesovaa, Eva Justovad, Miroslav Eberb, Petr Pirekb
a Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, I. P. Pavlova 6, 775 20 Olomouc, Czech Republic
b Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc
c Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc
d Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc

Background: Dental materials, oral hygiene products and food additives may cause contact allergic reactions in the mouth with varied clinical presentation. Oral lichenoid lesions (lichen planus-like lesions) can be induced by hypersensitivity to dental restorative metals, acrylates, flavorings and other substances.

Aim: The aim of this study was to demonstrate contact allergy to dental materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions using patch tests.

Patients and methods: Routine patch tests with two sets of allergens - "European Standard" and "Dental Screening" (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Sweden) supplemented with pulverized amalgam, iridium, indium, menthol, sorbic acid and platinum were done on a set of 25 patients with lichenoid lesions located on the buccal mucosa, tongue and lips. Application and interpretation of the tests were conducted according to ICDRG (International Contact Dermatitis Research Group).

Results: 15 (60 %) patients showed sensitization to 1 or more allergens, with a total of 31 positive reactions. The greatest frequency of positive reactions was to dental metals, with a total of 27 positive reactions. The order of tested metals according to frequency of positive reactions was mercury (6/25/24 %), amalgam (6/25/24 %), nickel (4/25/16 %), palladium (4/25/16 %), cobalt (3/25/12 %), gold (2/25/8 %), chrome (1/25/4 %), indium (1/25/4 %). The clinical relevance of the results with regard to the material's presence in the mouth was demonstrated in 11 (44 %) patients. In 9 patients, replacement of the positively tested materials led to healing or to significant regression of mucosal changes.

Conclusions: The results of the patch tests showed the possible contribution of contact sensitization in the pathogenesis of lichenoid manifestations in the oral cavity. Due to the premalignant character of these lesions, replacement of positively tested materials and follow up of these patients is advised.

Keywords: Oral lichenoid lesions, Patch tests, Contact allergy, Dental materials, Amalgam

Received: September 15, 2007; Accepted: November 5, 2007


References

  1. Ditrichova D, Dobesova J, Kapralova S, Eber M, Steigerova H. Nejcastejsi kontaktni alergeny ustni dutiny a rtu. Ces Stomat 2007; 107:3945.
  2. Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Gronningsaeter AG, Björkman L. Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials intraoral observations at a clinical follow-up. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003; 31:2006. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Björkman L. A follow-up study of patiens with subjective symptoms related to dental materials. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005; 33:22734. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Torgerson RR, Davis MD, Bruce AJ, Farmer SA, Rogers RS 3rd. Contact allergy in oral disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 57:315 21. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Koch P, Bahmer FA. Oral lesions and symptoms related to metals used in dental restorations: a clinical, allergological and histological study. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999; 41:42230. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Gawkrodger DJ. Investigation of reactions to dental materials. Br J Dermatol 2005; 153:47985. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Dobesova J, Ditrichova D, Kapralova S, Pirek P, Eber M. Kontaktni alergicka cheilitida. Derma 2007; 7:126.
  8. Laeijendecker R, Dekker SK, Burger PM, Mulder PGH, Van Joost T, Neumann MHA. Oral Lichen Planus and Allergy to Dental Amalgam Restorations. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140:14348. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Thornhill MH. Oral lichenoid lesions and amalgam fi llings. Evid Based Dent 2006; 7:745. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Edwards PC, Kelsch R. Oral Lichen Planus: Clinical Presentation and Management. J Can Dent Assoc 2002; 68:4949.
  11. Hoskyn J, Guin JD. Contact allergy to cinnamal in a patient with oral lichen planus. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 52:160. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Hougeir FG, Yiannias JA, Hinni ML, Hentz JG, el-Azhary RA. Oral metal contact allergy: a pilot study on the cause of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Dermatol 2006; 45:26571. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Ismail SB, Kumar SKS, Zain RB. Oral lichen planus and lichenoid reactions: etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, management and malignant transformation. J Oral Sci 2007; 49:89106. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. van der Meij EH, Mast H, van der Waal I. The possible premalignant character of oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: A prospective fi ve-year follow-up study of 192 patients. Oral Oncol 2007; 43:7428. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr. Fisher´s contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
  16. Catalogue Patch Test Products. Chemotechnique Diagnostics. Sweden: 2007.
  17. Wong L, Freeman S. Oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) and mercury in amalgam fi llings. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:749. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Yiannias JA, Azhary RA, Hand JH, Pakzad SY, Rogers RS III. Relevant contact sensitivities in patients with the diagnosis of oral lichen planus. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 42:17782. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Athavale PN, Shum KW, Yeoman CM, Gawkrodger DJ. Oral lichenoid lesions and contact allergy to dental mercury and gold. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49:2645. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Dunsche A, Kästel I, Terheyden H, Springer ING, Christophers E, Brasch J. Oral lichenoid reactions associated with amalgam: improvement after amalgam removal. Br J Dermatol 2003; 148:70 6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Dunsche A, Frank MP, Lüttges J, Acil Y, Brasch J, Christophers E, Springer ING. Lichenoid reactions of murine mucosa associated with amalgam. Br J Dermatol 2003; 148:7418. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Valentova K. Chemicke vlastnosti dentalnich materialu. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackeho; 2006.
  23. Tvinnereim HM, Lundekvam BF, Morken T, Berge ME, Björkman L. Allergic contact reactions to dental gold. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:2889. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Laine J, Kalimo K, Happonen RP. Contact allergy to dental restorative materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36:1416. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Möller H. Dental gold alloys and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47:636. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Auzerie V, Mahé E, Marck Y, Auff ret N, Descamps V, Crickx B. Oral lichenoid eruption due to methacrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45:241. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Henriks-Eckerman ML, Suuronen K, Jolanki R, Alanko K. Methacrylates in dental restorative materials. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:2337. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  28. Goon ATJ, 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; 55:21926. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  29. Isaksson M, Lindberg M, Sundberg K, Hallander A, Bruze M. The development and course of patch-test reactions to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate. Contact Dermatitis 2005; 53:2927. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. Urbanček S, Dastychová E, Buchvald D, Vocilková A. Kontaktné alergény v pracovnom a životnom prostredí. Banská Bystrica: Gutenberg; 2005.
  31. Clayton R, Orton D. Contact allergy to spearmint oil in a patient with oral lichen planus. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51:3145. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  32. Fujita Y, Shimizu T, Nishie W, Shimizu H. Contact dermatitis due to eugenol used to treat oral lichen planus. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:2856. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  33. Thorn JJ, Holmstrup P, Rindum J, Pindborg JJ. Course of various clinical forms of oral lichen planus. A prospective follow-up study of 611 patients. J Oral Pathol 1988; 17:2138. Go to original source...
  34. Benakova N, Stork J. Lichen planus a lichenoidni reakce. Ces-slov Derm 2005; 80:6575.
  35. van der Meij EH, Schepman KP, Plonait DR, Axéll T, van der Waal I. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the clinical assessment of oral lichen planus. J Oral Pathol 2002; 31:958. Go to original source...
  36. van der Meij EH, van der Waal I. Lack of clinicopathologic correlation in the diagnosis of oral lichen planus based on the presently available diagnostic criteria and suggestions for modifi cations. J Oral Pathol 2003; 32:50712. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...