Maki Hosoki1, Keisuke Nishigawa1, Toyoko Tajima1, Mayu Ueda1, Yoshizo Matsuka2. 1. Department of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusal Reconstruction, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University Graduate School, Tokushima, Japan. 2. Department of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusal Reconstruction, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University Graduate School, Tokushima, Japan. Electronic address: matsuka@tokushima-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies have reported cases of metal allergy caused by titanium-containing materials. We wished to clarify the relationship between titanium allergy and dental implants by describing patients who suffered allergic symptoms after they had received such implants. METHODS: A total of 270 patients who visited a Dental Metal Allergy Clinic at Tokushima University Hospital from April 2010 to March 2014 were the study cohort. Patch testing with 28 types of metal allergens (including four titanium allergens) was undertaken for patients. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients (80.4 %) exhibited allergy-positive reactions to at least one type of metal allergen. Mercury, palladium, chromium and nickel exhibited a higher prevalence of allergy-positive reactions than other metals. Sixteen patients visited our clinic suffering allergic symptoms after receiving dental implants. Eleven of those patients exhibited allergy-positive reactions for any of the metal allergens, and 4 of these patients had allergy-positive reactions against titanium allergens. The total number of allergy-positive reactions for titanium allergens among all 270 patients was 17 (6.3 %). No patient exhibited a positive reaction only for the titanium allergen. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of allergy-positive reactions for titanium allergens was lower than for other metal allergens. We suggest examination of pre-implant patients who have a history of hypersensitivity reactions to metals.
PURPOSE: Studies have reported cases of metalallergy caused by titanium-containing materials. We wished to clarify the relationship between titaniumallergy and dental implants by describing patients who suffered allergic symptoms after they had received such implants. METHODS: A total of 270 patients who visited a Dental MetalAllergy Clinic at Tokushima University Hospital from April 2010 to March 2014 were the study cohort. Patch testing with 28 types of metal allergens (including four titanium allergens) was undertaken for patients. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients (80.4 %) exhibited allergy-positive reactions to at least one type of metal allergen. Mercury, palladium, chromium and nickel exhibited a higher prevalence of allergy-positive reactions than other metals. Sixteen patients visited our clinic suffering allergic symptoms after receiving dental implants. Eleven of those patients exhibited allergy-positive reactions for any of the metal allergens, and 4 of these patients had allergy-positive reactions against titanium allergens. The total number of allergy-positive reactions for titanium allergens among all 270 patients was 17 (6.3 %). No patient exhibited a positive reaction only for the titanium allergen. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of allergy-positive reactions for titanium allergens was lower than for other metal allergens. We suggest examination of pre-implant patients who have a history of hypersensitivity reactions to metals.