Contact dermatitis · 2026
Patch Test Results With Dental Series: An 18-Year Retrospective Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jagodich Mira, Németh Dominik, Tóth Adrienn, Temesvári Erzsébet, Holló Péter, Szalai Zsuzsanna Zsófia, Pónyai Györgyi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dental treatments are increasingly common; materials continuously evolve, while long-term detailed data of hypersensitivity reactions are limited.
OBJECTIVES: Investigating the prevalence, characteristics, co-sensitisation rates of metals, (meth)acrylates and other allergens related to the medical history of dental patients at a university centre in Hungary.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 918 patients patch tested between 2007 and 2024 with dental screening series, stratified into pre-defined clinical subgroups.
RESULTS: 60.3% of the tested patients were positive for at least one allergen. Metal hypersensitivity was detected in 51.4%, (meth)acrylate in 6.1%, 'other' allergens in 21.8%. Mostly multiple positive patch test reactions were observed (69%). Reactions first becoming positive only on D7 were observed in 68.4% of the tested allergens. Among patients with gingivostomatitis, oral lichenoid reaction, glossitis and cheilitis, a dominantly mixed metal sensitisation pattern was typical, while in the subgroup of facial oedema/urticaria, subjective complaints and pre-implantation, nonspecific hypersensitivity pattern.
CONCLUSION: Metals were the most frequent dental contact allergens, but comprehensive oral screening series should also include non-metal allergens for diagnostic accuracy. 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate was not a reliable screening marker for (meth)acrylates. The evaluation of the patch test until D7 is necessary. Patch testing without objective symptoms and positive history of allergic contact dermatitis was ineffective.
OBJECTIVES: Investigating the prevalence, characteristics, co-sensitisation rates of metals, (meth)acrylates and other allergens related to the medical history of dental patients at a university centre in Hungary.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 918 patients patch tested between 2007 and 2024 with dental screening series, stratified into pre-defined clinical subgroups.
RESULTS: 60.3% of the tested patients were positive for at least one allergen. Metal hypersensitivity was detected in 51.4%, (meth)acrylate in 6.1%, 'other' allergens in 21.8%. Mostly multiple positive patch test reactions were observed (69%). Reactions first becoming positive only on D7 were observed in 68.4% of the tested allergens. Among patients with gingivostomatitis, oral lichenoid reaction, glossitis and cheilitis, a dominantly mixed metal sensitisation pattern was typical, while in the subgroup of facial oedema/urticaria, subjective complaints and pre-implantation, nonspecific hypersensitivity pattern.
CONCLUSION: Metals were the most frequent dental contact allergens, but comprehensive oral screening series should also include non-metal allergens for diagnostic accuracy. 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate was not a reliable screening marker for (meth)acrylates. The evaluation of the patch test until D7 is necessary. Patch testing without objective symptoms and positive history of allergic contact dermatitis was ineffective.