Oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) cannot be distinguished from oral lichen planus (OLP) except that causative factors can be identified. Amalgam is one of the causative allergens, and replacement may lead to resolution.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, prognosis, and aggravating factors of amalgam contact allergy in patients with OLLs.
Methods
A clinical retrospective and prospective cohort study was carried out at the Dermatology Department, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University. In cases with patch test positive for an amalgam component, patients were suggested to replace their amalgam restorations.
Results
Of 53 patients with OLLs, 39 (73.6%) had positive patch test results, and 31 (58.5%) reacted to at least one amalgam component. The most common causative allergen was mercury (35.8%). Lesions on bilateral buccal mucosa and gingiva tended to have negative patch test results (P < 0.05). Spicy food was the main aggravating factor. Amalgam replacements were performed in 10 patients. Clinical improvement was observed in all cases with complete healing in 3 cases.
Conclusions
The prevalence of amalgam contact allergy in patients with OLLs was 58.5%. Mercury was the most common allergen, followed by copper sulfate. An association between clinical, topographic relation, and positive patch test results would be a useful predictor for favorable outcome after amalgam removal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al-HashimiI, SchifterM, LockhartPB, et al.Oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: diagnostic and therapeutic considerations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2007; 103(suppl):S25.e21–S25.e12.
2.
ThornhillMH, PembertonMN, SimmonsRK, et al.Amalgam-contact hypersensitivity lesions and oral lichen planus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2003; 95:291–299.
3.
LaeijendeckerR, DekkerSK, BurgerPM, et al.Oral lichen planus and allergy to dental amalgam restorations. Arch Dermatol, 2004; 140:1434–1438.
4.
LynchM, RyanA, GalvinS, et al.Patch testing in oral lichenoid lesions of uncertain etiology. Dermatitis, 2015; 26:89–93.
5.
McParlandH, WarnakulasuriyaS. Oral lichenoid contact lesions to mercury and dental amalgam—a review. J Biomed Biotechnol, 2012; 2012:1–8. doi:10.1155/2012/589569.
6.
McGivernB, PembertonM, TheakerED, et al.Delayed and immediate hypersensitivity reactions associated with the use of amalgam. Br Dent J, 2000; 188:73–76.
7.
AthavalePN, ShumKW, YeomanCM, et al.Oral lichenoid lesions and contact allergy to dental mercury and gold. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49:264–265.
8.
AhlgrenC, AxéllT, MöllerH, et al.Contact allergies to potential allergens in patients with oral lichen lesions. Clin Oral Investig, 2014; 18:227–237.
9.
HolmstrupP. Oral mucosa and skin reactions related to amalgam. Adv Dent Res, 1992; 6:120–124.
10.
MartinMD, BroughtonS, DrangsholtM. Oral lichen planus and dental materials: a case-control study. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48:331–336.
11.
YianniasJA, el-AzharyRA, HandJH, et al.Relevant contact sensitivities in patients with the diagnosis of oral lichen planus. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2000; 42:177–182.
12.
KochP, BahmerFA. Oral lesions and symptoms related to metals used in dental restorations: a clinical, allergological, and histologic study. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1999; 41:422–430.
13.
LaineJ, KalimoK, HapponenRP. Contact allergy to dental restorative materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 36:141–146.
14.
OstmanPO, AnnerothG, SkoglundA. Amalgam-associated oral lichenoid reactions. Clinical and histologic changes after removal of amalgam fillings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 1996; 81:459–465.
15.
van der MeijEH, van der WaalI. Lack of clinicopathologic correlation in the diagnosis of oral lichen planus based on the presently available diagnostic criteria and suggestions for modifications. J Oral Pathol Med, 2003; 32:507–512.
16.
Practical aspects of patch testing. In: RietschelRL, FowlerJFJr, eds. Fisher’s Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Ontario, Canada: BC Decker Inc; 2008:11–29.
17.
Cobos-FuentesMJ, Martínez-Sahuquillo-MárquezA, Gallardo-CastilloI, et al.Oral lichenoid lesions related to contact with dental materials: a literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2009; 14:e514–e520.
18.
ThornhillMH, SankarV, XuXJ, et al.The role of histopathological characteristics in distinguishing amalgam-associated oral lichenoid reactions and oral lichen planus. J Oral Pathol Med, 2006; 35:233–240.
19.
IssaY, BruntonPA, GlennyAM, et al.Healing of oral lichenoid lesions after replacing amalgam restorations: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2004; 98:553–565.
20.
SkoglundA, EgelrudT. Hypersensitivity reactions to dental materials in patients with lichenoid oral mucosal lesions and in patients with burning mouth syndrome. Scand J Dent Res, 1991; 99:320–328.
21.
WongL, FreemanS. Oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) and mercury in amalgam fillings. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48:74–79.
22.
AggarwalV, JainA, KabiD. Oral lichenoid reaction associated with tin component of amalgam restorations: a case report. Am J Dermatopathol, 2010; 32:46–48.
23.
van der WaalI. Oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions; a critical appraisal with emphasis on the diagnostic aspects. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2009; 14:E310–E314.
24.
Mravak-StipetićM, Lončar-BrzakB, Bakale-HodakI, et al.Clinicopathologic correlation of oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: a preliminary study. Scientific World Journal, 2014; 2014:746874.
25.
IbbotsonSH, SpeightEL, MacleodRI, et al.The relevance and effect of amalgam replacement in subjects with oral lichenoid reactions. Br J Dermatol, 1996; 134:420–423.
26.
KochP, BahmerFA. Oral lichenoid lesions, mercury hypersensitivity and combined hypersensitivity to mercury and other metals: histologically-proven reproduction of the reaction by patch testing with metal salts. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33:323–328.
CummingCG, WightC, BlackwellCL, et al.Denture stomatitis in the elderly. Oral Microbiol Immunol, 1990; 5:82–85.
29.
KanervaL, EstlanderT, JolankiR. Allergic contact dermatitis from dental composite resins due to aromatic epoxy acrylates and aliphatic acrylates. Contact Dermatitis, 1989; 20:201–211.
30.
FowlerJF Jr. Gold. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12:1–2.
31.
LaineJ, KonttinenYT, BeliaevN, et al.Immunocompetent cells in amalgam-associated oral lichenoid contact lesions. J Oral Pathol Med, 1999; 28:117–121.
32.
SkoglundA. Value of epicutaneous patch testing in patients with oral, mucosal lesions of lichenoid character. Scand J Dent Res, 1994; 102:216–222.
33.
LaineJ, KalimoK, ForssellH, et al.Resolution of oral lichenoid lesions after replacement of amalgam restorations in patients allergic to mercury compounds. Br J Dermatol, 1992; 126:10–15.
34.
PangBK, FreemanS. Oral lichenoid lesions caused by allergy to mercury in amalgam fillings. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33:423–427.
35.
SmartER, MacleodRI, LawrenceCM. Resolution of lichen planus following removal of amalgam restorations in patients with proven allergy to mercury salts: a pilot study. Br Dent J, 1995; 178:108–112.
36.
van der MeijEH, MastH, van der WaalI. The possible premalignant character of oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: a prospective five-year follow-up study of 192 patients. Oral Oncol, 2007; 43:742–748.
37.
FitzpatrickSG, HirschSA, GordonSC. The malignant transformation of oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc, 2014; 145:45–56.
