Polyether impression materials have been used in dentistry for more than 40 years. Allergic reactions to these materials such as reported in the 1970s ceased after replacement of a catalyst. Very recently, however, patients have started to report symptoms that suggest a new allergic reaction from polyether impression materials. Here, we report on the results of allergy testing with polyether impression materials as well as with its components. Eight patients with clinical symptoms of a contact allergy (swelling, redness or blisters) after exposure to a polyether impression material were subjected to patch tests, two of them additionally to a prick test. A further patient with atypical symptoms of an allergy (nausea and vomiting after contact with a polyether impression material in the oral cavity) but with a history of other allergic reaction was also patch tested. The prick tests showed no immediate reactions in the two patients tested. In the patch tests, all eight patients with typical clinical symptoms showed positive reactions to the mixed polyether impression materials, to the base paste or to a base paste component. The patient with the atypical clinical symptoms did not show any positive patch test reactions. Polyether impression materials may evoke type IV allergic reactions. The causative agent was a component of the base paste. In consideration of the widespread use of this impression material (millions of applications per year) and in comparison to the number of adverse reactions from other dental materials, the number of such allergic reactions is very low. In very scarce cases, positive allergic reactions to polyether impression materials are possible.
Objectives
Examination of patients claiming adverse effects from dental materials can be very challenging. Particularly, systemic aspects must be considered besides dental and orofacial diseases and allergies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate a cohort of 687 patients reporting on adverse effects from dental materials focusing on findings related to known general diseases or conditions or medication-related findings with relevance to their subjective complaints.
Methods
Six hundred eighty-seven patients visiting a specialized consultation on claimed adverse effects from dental materials were retrospectively investigated for their subjective complaints, findings related to known general diseases or conditions, medication-related findings, dental and orofacial findings, or allergies with relevance to their subjective complaints.
Results
The most frequent subjective complaints were burning mouth (44.1%), taste disorders (28.5%), and dry mouth (23.7%). In 58.4% of the patients, dental and orofacial findings relevant to their complaints could be found. Findings related to known general diseases or conditions or medication-related findings were found in 28.7% or 21.0% of the patients, respectively. Regarding medications, findings related to antihypertensives (10.0%) and psychotropic drugs (5.7%) were found most frequently. Relevant diagnosed allergies toward dental materials were found in 11.9%, hyposalivation in 9.6% of the patients. In 15.1% of the patients, no objectifiable causes for the expressed complaints could be found.
Conclusions
For patients complaining of adverse effects from dental materials, findings related to known general diseases or conditions and medications should be given particular consideration, while still in some patients, no objectifiable causes for their complaints can be found.
Clinical relevance
For patients complaining about adverse effects from dental materials, specialized consultations and close collaboration with experts from other medical fields are eligible.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.