Nickel allergy to dental prostheses

Fernadez, J. P.; Véron, C; Hildebrand, Hartmut F.; Martin, P.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1986.tb05283.x

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The extensive use of base-metal casting alloys containing nickel for fixed restorations has been of major concern to the dental profession, but relatively few case reports substantiate this concern (Kalkwarf, 1984;Hensten-Pettersen, 1984;Fernandez et al, 1986;Lamster et al, 1987). Weiss (1983) states that "after a 14-year experience spanning some 50,000 units, I have yet to see an oral lesion attributable to the restorative work" (relating to a nickel-chromium-beryllium alloy and nickel-sensitive patients).…”

Section: Reactions To Specific Alloy Systemsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Casting Alloys: Side-Effects

Hensten‐Pettersen

1992

Adv Dent Res.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Side-effects from dental materials are a minor problem, but should be recognized. In recent questionnaire surveys about side-effects, the incidence was estimated to be 1:300 in periodontics and 1:2600 in pedodontics. None of these reactions was related to dental casting alloys. In prosthodontics, the incidence was calculated to be about 1:400, and about 27% were related to base-metal alloys for removable partial dentures (cobalt, chromium, nickel) and to noble/gold-based alloys for porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations. The complaints consisted of intra-oral reactions (such as redness, swelling, and pain of the oral mucosa and lips), oral/gingival lichenoid reactions, and a few instances of systemic reactions. In orthodontics, the incidence was 1:100, and most reactions (85%) were related to metal parts of the extra-oral anchorage devices. Even though the extensive use of base-metal alloys has been of major concern to the dental profession, relatively few case reports substantiate this concern. Allergy to gold-based dental restorations has been more commonly reported. Palladium-based alloys have been associated with several cases of stomatitis and oral lichenoid reactions. Palladium allergy seems to occur mainly in patients who are very sensitive to nickel. All casting alloys, except titanium, seem to have a potential for eliciting adverse reactions in individual hypersensitive patients. Tolerance induction may be a possible benefit of the use of intra-orally placed alloys. In non-sensitized individuals, oral antigenic contacts to nickel and chromium may induce tolerance rather than sensitization. A variety of systemic diseases and reactions has been claimed to be caused by dental materials. The claims are generally poorly documented.

show abstract

Section: Reactions To Specific Alloy Systemsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Casting Alloys: Side-Effects

Hensten‐Pettersen

1992

Adv Dent Res.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(5,6) The nickel one of the most common allergens and the most potent sensitizer of all metals has been described as "ubiquitous contact allergens" . (7) It has been shown (2,6,8,9) that patients who are allergic to nickel will also react to certain nickel chromium dental alloys.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodegradation Of Nickel And Chromium From Stainless Steel Crowns And Space Maintainers - An In Vitro Study

Reddy

1997

ADUM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study was undertaken to analyse in vitro biodegradation of stainless steel crowns, and space maintainers (stainless steel band materials) by keeping the respective number of samples in the artificial saliva incubating at 37°C. Nickel and chromium release after 1,7,14,21 and 28 days was analysed by using atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Results showed that there was statistically significant release of both nickel and chromium which reached maximum level at the end of 7 days and gradually reduced thereafter. The maximum release of nickel and chromium was much below than the dietary intake even for four crownsjband used and are not capable of causing any toxicity.

show abstract

“…Adverse effects of nickel may be local or systemic. The former include oral erythema, with burning of the oral mucosa and pharynx, from dental prostheses (5). Similarly, contact dermatitis has been reported from pacemakers ( 6), jewelry (2) and infusion needles (7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Contact stomatitis from a dental prosthesis

Romaguera¹,

Vilaplana²,

Grimalt³

1989

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key words: allergic contact stomatitis; metal dental prosthesis; nickel.18 months ago, after having a metal dental prosthesis fitted, a 40-year-old female, with a history of intolerance to metals since infancy, developed persistent gingivostomatitis and ulceration; this disappeared after removal of the prosthesis.Patch tests showed positivity to nickel in the GEIDC standard series ( + + ); all other tests were negative. A special series (Chemotechnique) for dental screening (21 allergens) also showed positivity only to nickel. The metal dental prosthesis was made of metal alloy and porcelain, and made by Ordenta under the

show abstract

Nickel allergy to dental prostheses

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

Casting Alloys: Side-Effects

Casting Alloys: Side-Effects

Biodegradation Of Nickel And Chromium From Stainless Steel Crowns And Space Maintainers - An In Vitro Study

Contact stomatitis from a dental prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About