Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Oral Cavity and Allergy: Meeting the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge

  • Epidemiology (M Laine, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oral Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Allergic reactions of the oral mucosa are associated with diverse symptoms and can severely affect patients’ quality of life. Oral mucosa changes such as stomatitis or lichenoid reactions can be the first evidence of a contact allergy, with oral lichenoid reactions after contact with dental restorations, especially amalgam fillings, being among the most common clinical reactions. Additives in foods and oral hygiene products may also cause allergic mucosal reactions. Subjective symptoms, such as pain, burning feeling, or dryness of the oral mucosa, as well as cheilitis or lip and facial swelling, may not only have an allergic component but may also be associated with other diseases that have to be excluded. A complete and thorough clinical examination of the oral mucosa is the first step in the diagnosis of a contact allergy. A detailed history of the patient’s oral care products, drugs, and dental materials is both essential and helpful for the clinician. As a result of the presence of mucosal changes, a patch test can be used for the diagnosis of contact allergy of delayed type. Although the patch test is the standard diagnostic tool for such types of contact allergy, proper interpretation of patch-test results and their clinical relevance can be challenging. As the number of patients with allergies resulting from different materials increases over the years, and a larger number of different dental materials are found to induce an allergy, it is essential for dentists to be aware of the possible allergic reactions to dental materials. Thus, we aimed to develop a systematic approach for contact allergy of the oral cavity, focusing not only on clinical manifestations and diagnosis but also on management and prediction of the risk of oral allergic reactions. A multidisciplinary approach for patients with an oral allergy is essential, with participation of physicians of different specialties, including dentists, allergists and dermatologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Ditrichova D et al. Oral lichenoid lesions and allergy to dental materials. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2007;151(2):333–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Hoogstraten IM et al. The frequency of nickel allergy upon oral nickel contact at an early age. Clin Exp Immunol. 1991;85(3):441–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lygre GB et al. Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials: intraoral observations at a clinical follow-up. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006;31(3):200–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kamath VV et al. Oral lichenoid lesions: a review and update. Indian J Dermatol. 2015;60(1):102. Important review works focusing on oral allergy including a big amount of patients.

  5. Thronhill MH. Oral lichen planus and allergy to dental amalgam restorations. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(12):1434–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Edwards PC, Kelsch R. Oral lichen planus: clinical presentation and management. J Can Dent Assoc. 2002;68(8):494–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karabucak B, Stoopler ET. Root canal treatment on a patient with zinc oxide allergy: a case report. Int Endod J. 2007;40(10):800–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Raap U et al. Investigation of contact allergy to dental metals in 206 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(6):339–43. Important review works focusing on oral allergy including a big amount of patients.

  9. Chaturvedi TP. An overview of the corrosion aspect of dental implants (titanium and its alloys). Indian J Dent Res. 2009;20(1):91–8. Important articles refering to oral allergy and individual dental materials or products.

  10. Fischer MM, Bowey J. Alleged allergy to local anaesthetics. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1997;25(6):611–4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Spencer AJ. Dental amalgam and mercury in dentistry. Aust Dent J. 2000;45(4):224–34. Important articles refering to oral allergy and individual dental materials or products.

  12. Goodrich JM et al. Exposures of dental professionals to elemental mercury and methylmercury. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2016;26(1):78–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kal BI et al. An unusual case of immediate hypersensitivity reaction associated with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J. 2008;205(10):547–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Henriksson E, Mattsson U, Håkansson J. Healing of lichenoid reactions following removal of amalgam. A clinical follow-up. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22(4):287–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ellison R et al. Orofacial granulomatosis related to amalgam fillings. Scott Med J. 2013;58(4):24–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rachmawati D et al. Dental metal-induced innate reactivity in keratinocytes. Toxicol in Vitro. 2015;30(1):325–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ahlgren C et al. Contact allergies to potential allergens in patients with oral lichen lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(1):227–37. Important articles refering to oral allergy and individual dental materials or products.

  18. McParland H, Warnakulasuriya S. Oral lichenoid contact lesions to mercury and dental amalgam-a review. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012;2012:589569.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Little MC et al. Activation of oral keratinocytes by mercuric chloride: relevance to dental amalgam-induced oral lichenoid reactions. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144(5):1024–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pigatto PD et al. Linking allergy to mercury to HLA and burning mouth syndrome. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21(8):1118–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pigatto PD, et al. Systemic allergic contact dermatitis associated with allergy to intraoral metals. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20(10).

  22. Pigatto PD et al. Recovery from mercury-induced burning mouth syndrome due to mercury allergy. Dermatitis. 2004;15(2):75–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahlgren C et al. Contact allergy to gold is correlated to dental gold. Acta Derm Venereol. 2002;82(1):41–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wataha JC, Drury JL, Chung WO. Nickel alloys in the oral environment. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10(4):519–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Curtis A et al. The effects of nickel and chromium on human keratinocytes: differences in viability, cell associated metal and IL-1 alpha release. Toxicol in Vitro. 2007;21(5):809–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sebastiani S et al. Nickel-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+)T cells display distinct migratory responses to chemokines produced during allergic contact dermatitis. J Investig Dermatol. 2002;118(6):1052–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dwivedi A et al. Release of nickel and chromium ions in the saliva of patients with fixed orthodontic appliance: an in-vivo study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2015;6(1):61–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Noble J et al. Nickel allergy and orthodontics, a review and report of two cases. Br Dent J. 2008;204(6):297–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Büyüköztürk S et al. Nickel dental alloys can induce laryngeal edema attacks: a case report. J Dermatol. 2013;40(9):740–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Büyüköztürk S et al. Oral nickel exposure may induce type I hypersensitivity reaction in nickel-sensitized subjects. Int Immunopharmacol. 2015;26(1):92–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sicilia A et al. Titanium allergy in dental implant patients: a clinical study on 1500 consecutive patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(8):823–35. Important articles refering to oral allergy and individual dental materials or products.

  32. Nawaz F, Wall BM. Drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome: suspected association with titanium bioprosthesis. Am J Med Sci. 2007;334(3):215–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Müller K, Valentine-Thon E. Hypersensitivity to titanium: clinical and laboratory evidence. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2007;28(5):31–5.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Schwitalla A, Müller WD. PEEK dental implants: a review of the literature. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39(6):743–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hosoki M et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by titanium screws and dental implants. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60(3):213–9. Important articles refering to oral allergy and individual dental materials or products.

  36. Marquardt W et al. Volatile methacrylates in dental practices. J Adhes Dent. 2009;11(2):101–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Johns DA, Hemarai S, Varoli RK. Allergic contact stomatitis from bisphenol-a-glycidyl dimethacrylate during application of composite restorations: a case report. Indian J Dent Res. 2014;25(2):266–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Blomgren J et al. Adverse reactions in the oral mucosa associated with anterior composite restorations. J Oral Pathol Med. 1996;25(6):311–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Leggat PA, Kedjarune U. Toxicity of methyl methacrylate in dentistry. Int Dent J. 2003;53(3):126–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wingfield Digby SS, Thyssen JP. How should we advise patients with allergic contact dermatitis caused by (meth-)acrylates about future dentalwork? Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74(2):116–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Snyder HA, Settle S. The rise in latex allergy: implications for the dentist. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994;125(8):1089–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Primeau MN, Adkinson NF, Hamilton RG. Natural rubber pharmaceutical vial closures release latex allergens that produce skin reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;107(6):958–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McEntee J. Dental local anaesthetics and latex: advice for the dental practitioner. Dent Updat. 2012;39(7):508–10.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Chin S, Ferguson J, Bajurnow T. Latex allergy in dentistry. Review and report of case presenting as a serious reaction to latex dental dam. Aust Dent J. 2004;49(3):146–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nainar SM. Dental management of children with latex allergy. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2001;11(5):322–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kean T, McNally M. Latex hypersensitivity: a closer look at considerations for dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc. 2009;75(4):279–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hamann CP, DePaola LG, Rogers PA. Occupation-related allergies in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(4):500–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Speca SJ, Boynes SG, Cuddy MA. Allergic reactions to local anesthetic formulations. Dent Clin N Am. 2010;54(4):655–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lukawska J et al. Hypersensitivity to local anesthetics: 6 facts and 7 myths. Clin Immunol Curr Allergy. 2009;22(1):117–20.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Batinac T et al. Adverse reactions and alleged allergy to local anesthetics: analysis of 331 patients. J Dermatol. 2013;40(7):522–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Baluga JC. Allergy to local anesthetics in dentistry. Myth or reality? Rev Allerg Mex. 2010;50(5):176–81.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Montebugnoli L et al. Heart rate variability: a sensitive parameter for detecting abnormal cardiocirculatory changes during a stressful dental procedure. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135(12):1718–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Terai H, Shimahara M. Glossodynia from Candida-associated lesions, burning mouth syndrome, or mixed causes. Pain Med. 2010;11(6):856–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pigatto PD et al. Photoletter to the editor: exfoliative cheilitis associated with titanium dental implants and mercury amalgam. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2011;5(4):89–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Taibjee SM, Prais L, Foulds IS. Orofacial granulomatosis worsened by chocolate: results of patch testing to ingredients of Cadbury’s chocolate. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150(3):595.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Endo H, Rees T. Cinnamon products as a possible etiologic factor in orofacial granulomatosis. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007;12(6):440–4.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Samimi M. Cheilitis: diagnosis and treatment. Presse Med. 2016;45(2):240–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sharma R et al. Role of dental restoration materials in oral mucosal lichenoid lesions. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2015;81(5):478–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Laine J, Kalimo K, Happonen RP. Contact allergy to dental restorative materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36(3):141–6. Important articles refering to oral allergy and individual dental materials or products.

  60. Sockanathan S, Setterfield J, Wakelin S. Oral lichenoid reaction due to chromate/cobalt in dentla prothesis. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(6):342–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Dunsche A et al. Oral lichenoid reactions associated with amalgam: improvement after amalgam removal. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(1):70–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Brown RS, Farquharson AA. A topical imiquimod-induced oral mucosal lichenoid reaction: a case report. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(11):1141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bäckmann K, Jontell M. Microbial-associated oral lichenoid reactions. Oral Dis. 2007;12(4):402–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Koutis D, Freeman S. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylic monomer in a denture. Australas J Dermatol. 2001;42(3):203–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Martin N et al. Orofacial reactions to methacrylates in dental materials: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(3):225–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Tang A, Bjorkman L, Ekstrand J. New filling materials: an occupational health hazard. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2000;15(1):102–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Pardo J et al. Allergic contact stomatitis due to manganese in a dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(1):41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wray D et al. The role of allergy in oral mucosal diseases. QJM. 2000;93(8):507–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Aravindhan R et al. Burning mouth syndrome: a review on its diagnostic and therapeutic approach. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014;6 Suppl 1:S21–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Mendak M. Algorithm for diagnosis and treatment of the primary and secondary burning mouth syndrome depending on etiological factors. Dent Med Probl. 2006;43(1):585–95.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jimson S et al. Burning mouth syndrome. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015;7(1):194–6.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Coculescu EC, Tovaru S, Coculescu BI. Epidemiological and etiological aspects of burning mouth syndrome. J Med Life. 2014;7(3):305–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Slebioda Z, Szponar E. Burning mouth syndrome: a common dental problem in perimenopausal women. Prz Menopauzalny. 2014;13(3):198–202.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Milanesi N et al. Aspects of contact cheilitis: analysis of 38 cases. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(6):1052–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. O'Gorman SM, Torgerson RR. Contact allergy in cheilitis. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55(7):386–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Lee A et al. Two cases of allergic contact cheilitis from sodium lauryl sulfate in toothpaste. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42(2):111.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Van Baelen A, Kerre S, Goossens A. Allergic contact cheilitis and hand dermatitis caused by a toothpaste. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74(3):187–9. Important articles refering to oral allergy and individual dental materials or products.

  78. Le Coz CJ, Bezard M. Allergic contact cheilitis due to effervescent dental cleanser: combined responsibilities of the allergen persulfate and prothesis porosity. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41(5):268–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Le Coz CJ, Ball C. Recurrent allergic contact dermatitis and cheilitis due to castor oil. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42(2):114–5.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Kano S et al. Granulomatous cheilitis with intralymphatic histiocytosis possibly associated with calcium deposition caused by chronic inflammation owing to dental metals and periodontitis. J Dermatol. 2015;42(1):84–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Abbas Z et al. Pemphigus vulgaris presented with cheilitis. Case Rep Dermatol Med. 2014;2014:147197.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Balakumar P, Kavitha M, Nanditha S. Cardiovascular drugs-induced oral toxicities: a murky area to be revisited and illuminated. Pharmacol Res. 2015;102(1):81–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Grave B, McCullough M, Wiesenfeld D. Orofacial granulomatosis: a 20-year review. Oral Dis. 2000;15(1):46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Muñoz-Corcuera M et al. Oral ulcers: clinical aspects. A tool for dermatologists. Part I. Acute ulcers. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2009;34(3):89–94. Important articles which advise clinicians to come along with diagnosis and treatment of oral allergy.

  85. Muñoz-Corcuera M et al. Oral ulcers: clinical aspects. A tool for dermatologists. Part II. Chronic ulcers. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2009;34(4):456–61. Important articles which advise clinicians to come along with diagnosis and treatment of oral allergy.

  86. Siu A, Landon K, Ramos DA. Differential diagnosis and management of oral ulcers. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2015;34(4):171–7. Important articles which advise clinicians to come along with diagnosis and treatment of oral allergy.

  87. Nettis E et al. Reported latex allergy in dental patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;93(2):144–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Katoh N et al. Dermal contact dermatitis caused by allergy to palladium. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40(4):226–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. de Silva BD, Docherty V. Nickel allergy from orthodontic appliances. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42(2):102–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Pigatto PD, Guzzi G. Systemic allergic dermatitis syndrome caused by mercury. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59(1):66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Trombelli L et al. Systemic contact dermatitis from an orthodontic appliance. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27(4):259–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Shargill I, Asher-McDade C. An unusual allergic response to orthodontic treatment. Dent Updat. 2015;42(6):580–2.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Griffin T. Anaphylaxis in general dental practice. Prim Dent J. 2014;3(1):6–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Raap U, Stiesch M, Kapp A. Contact allergy to dental materials. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2012;10(6):391–6. Important review works focusing on oral allergy including a big amount of patients.

  95. Neodorost S, Wagman A. Positive patch-test reactions to gold: patients’ perception of relevance and the role of titanium dioxide in cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2005;16(2):67–70.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Summer B et al. Role of the lymphocyte transformation test in the evaluation of metal sensitization. Hautarzt. 2016;67(5):380–4. Interesting article giving a future point of view in matters of an innovative diagnostic method.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Eleni Papakonstantinou & Ulrike Raap

Authors
  1. Eleni Papakonstantinou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulrike Raap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleni Papakonstantinou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Eleni Papakonstantinou and Ulrike Raap declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Funding Source

None.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Epidemiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papakonstantinou, E., Raap, U. Oral Cavity and Allergy: Meeting the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge. Curr Oral Health Rep 3, 347–355 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-016-0111-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-016-0111-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation