IADVL
Indexed with PubMed and Science Citation Index (E) 
 
Users online: 2467 
     Home | Feedback | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe What's New Contact  
  NAVIGATE Here 
    Next article
    Previous article
    Table of Contents

 RESOURCE Links
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4184    
    Printed163    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded238    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 81  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 478--484

Role of dental restoration materials in oral mucosal lichenoid lesions


1 Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Histopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
3 Department of Oral Health Sciences, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sanjeev Handa
Professor and Head, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh - 160 012
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.162341

Rights and Permissions

Background: Dental restorative materials containing silver-mercury compounds have been known to induce oral lichenoid lesions. Objectives: To determine the frequency of contact allergy to dental restoration materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions and to study the effect of removal of the materials on the lesions. 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.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Online since 15th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow