Author: Sharma R, Handa S, De D, Radotra BD, Rattan V.
Source: Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology.
Year: 2015
Comment:
Abstract / Excerpt:
Results: Forty-five patients were recruited in three groups of 15 each: Group A (lesions in close contact with dental materials), Group B (lesions extending 1 cm beyond the area of contact) and Group C (no topographic relationship). Thirty controls were recruited in two groups of 15 individuals each: Group D (oral lichenoid lesions but no dental material) and Group E (dental material but no oral lichenoid lesions). Patch tests were positive in 20 (44.5%) patients. Mercury was the most common allergen to elicit a positive reaction in eight patients, followed by nickel (7), palladium (5), potassium dichromate (3), balsam of Peru, gold sodium thiosulphate 2 and tinuvin (2) and eugenol (1), cobalt chloride (1) and carvone (1). Seven patients elicited positive response to more than one allergen. In 13 of 20 patients who consented to removal of the dental material, complete healing was observed in 6 (30%), marked improvement in 7 (35%) and no improvement in 7 (35%) patients. Relief of symptoms was usually observed 3 months after removal. Limitations: Limited number of study subjects and short follow up after removal/replacement of dental restoration materials are the main limitations of this study.
Conclusion: Contact allergy to amalgam is an important etiologic factor in oral lichenoid lesions and removal of restorative material should be offered to patients who have lesions in close proximity to the dental material.
Citation: Sharma R, Handa S, De D, Radotra BD, Rattan V. Role of dental restoration materials in oral mucosal lichenoid lesions. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology. 2015 ; 81(5):478.