Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Clinical predictors of metal allergic sensitization in orthodontic patients

M. Zigante, S. Špalj

. 2022 ; 30 (3) : 173-178. [pub] 20220930

Jazyk angličtina Země Česko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22026965

Digitální knihovna NLK
Zdroj

E-zdroje Online Plný text

NLK Free Medical Journals od 2004
ProQuest Central od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) od 2006-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Public Health Database (ProQuest) od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources od 1993

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the predictors of allergic sensitisation to titanium and nickel in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. METHODS: A total of 250 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were invited to participate, and 235 were analysed (67% females). A patch test was performed using nickel sulphate, titanium, titanium dioxide, titanium oxalate, titanium nitride, and petrolatum as control. In addition, clinical signs of the oral mucosa, gingiva, tongue, lips, and allergological history were assessed. RESULTS: The predictors of metal allergic sensitisation in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were adult age (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.2-5.5; p = 0.016), female sex (OR = 3.0; 95% CI: 1.1-7.9; p = 0.025), exfoliative cheilitis (OR = 4.8; 95% CI: 1.9-12.4; p = 0.001), history of contact hypersensitivity (OR = 7.0; 95% CI: 1.3-35.4; p = 0.025), history of contact hypersensitivity to metals (OR = 8.3; 95% CI: 1.4-50.2; p = 0.021), and piercings (OR = 5.4; 95% CI: 2.1-13.9; p = 0.001). When predictors were analysed separately for these two metals, titanium sensitisation predictors were contact hypersensitivity to metals and piercing, whereas nickel sensitisation predictors were age and piercing. CONCLUSION: A positive patch test alone cannot draw definite conclusions regarding allergy. However, metal allergies in patients with orthodontic appliances could be considered in cases of previous contact hypersensitivity, previous reactions to metals, exfoliative cheilitis, and piercing.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22026965
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230314082549.0
007      
ta
008      
221108s2022 xr f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.21101/cejph.a7122 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)36239365
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Zigante, Martina $u Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia $u Department of Orthodontics, Clinic for Dental Medicine, Clinical Hospital Centre Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
245    10
$a Clinical predictors of metal allergic sensitization in orthodontic patients / $c M. Zigante, S. Špalj
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the predictors of allergic sensitisation to titanium and nickel in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. METHODS: A total of 250 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were invited to participate, and 235 were analysed (67% females). A patch test was performed using nickel sulphate, titanium, titanium dioxide, titanium oxalate, titanium nitride, and petrolatum as control. In addition, clinical signs of the oral mucosa, gingiva, tongue, lips, and allergological history were assessed. RESULTS: The predictors of metal allergic sensitisation in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were adult age (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.2-5.5; p = 0.016), female sex (OR = 3.0; 95% CI: 1.1-7.9; p = 0.025), exfoliative cheilitis (OR = 4.8; 95% CI: 1.9-12.4; p = 0.001), history of contact hypersensitivity (OR = 7.0; 95% CI: 1.3-35.4; p = 0.025), history of contact hypersensitivity to metals (OR = 8.3; 95% CI: 1.4-50.2; p = 0.021), and piercings (OR = 5.4; 95% CI: 2.1-13.9; p = 0.001). When predictors were analysed separately for these two metals, titanium sensitisation predictors were contact hypersensitivity to metals and piercing, whereas nickel sensitisation predictors were age and piercing. CONCLUSION: A positive patch test alone cannot draw definite conclusions regarding allergy. However, metal allergies in patients with orthodontic appliances could be considered in cases of previous contact hypersensitivity, previous reactions to metals, exfoliative cheilitis, and piercing.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    12
$a cheilitida $x chemicky indukované $7 D002613
650    12
$a kontaktní dermatitida $7 D003877
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a alergie $x epidemiologie $7 D006967
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a nikl $x škodlivé účinky $7 D009532
650    _2
$a oxaláty $7 D010070
650    _2
$a vazelína $7 D010577
650    _2
$a titan $7 D014025
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Špalj, Stjepan $u Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia $u Department of Orthodontics, Clinic for Dental Medicine, Clinical Hospital Centre Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia $u Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Health, J.J.Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia
773    0_
$w MED00001083 $t Central European journal of public health $x 1210-7778 $g Roč. 30, č. 3 (2022), s. 173-178
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36239365 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b B 1829 $c 562 $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20221108 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230314082546 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1896142 $s 1178272
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 30 $c 3 $d 173-178 $e 20220930 $i 1210-7778 $m Central European Journal of Public Health $n Cent. Eur. J. Public Health $x MED00001083
LZP    __
$b NLK198 $a Pubmed-20221108

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...