This systematic review summarizes characteristics and treatment outcomes of dental amalgam–associated oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) and oral lichen planus (OLP). Embase and MEDLINE were searched for original studies on OLLs or OLP associated with dental amalgam. Data extraction was completed from 44 studies representing 1855 patients. Removal of amalgam restorations led to complete resolution in 54.2% (n = 423/781), partial resolution in 34.8% (n = 272/781), and no resolution in 11.0% (n = 86/781) of the patients with OLLs, whereas complete resolution occurred in 37.1% (n = 72/194), partial resolution in 26.3% (n = 51/194), and no resolution in 36.6% (n = 71/194) of the patients with OLP. For patients with OLLs, 91.6% of the patients with positive patch tests and 82.9% with negative patch tests had improvement with removal of amalgam, whereas for patients with OLP, 89.2% of the patients with positive patch tests and 78.9% with negative patch tests had improvement with removal of amalgam. Our results suggest improvement occurs, regardless of patch testing status.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BroadbentJM, MurrayCM, SchwassDR, et al.The dental amalgam phasedown in New Zealand: a 20-year trend. Oper Dent, 2020; 45(3):255–264.
2.
BhartiR, WadhwaniKK, TikkuAP, et al.Dental amalgam: an update. J Conserv Dent, 2010; 13(4):204–208.
3.
HolmstrupP.Reactions of the oral mucosa related to silver amalgam: a review. J Oral Pathol Med, 1991; 20(1):1–7.
4.
McParlandH, WarnakulasuriyaS. Oral lichenoid contact lesions to mercury and dental amalgam—a review. J Biomed Biotechnol, 2012; 2012:589569.
5.
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(5):553–565.
6.
ThornhillMH.Oral lichenoid lesions and amalgam fillings: do oral lichenoid lesions improve or resolve if amalgam restorations are replaced with an alternative material?Evid Based Dent, 2006; 7(3):74–75.
7.
KamathVV, SetlurK, YerlaguddaK. Oral lichenoid lesions—a review and update. Indian J Dermatol, 2015; 60(1):102.
8.
Do PradoRF, MarocchioLS, FelipiniRC. Oral lichen planus versus oral lichenoid reaction: difficulties in the diagnosis. Indian J Dent Res, 2009; 20(3):361–364.
9.
DudhiaB, DudhiaS, PatelP, et al.Oral lichen planus to oral lichenoid lesions: evolution or revolution. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol, 2015; 19(3):364–370.
10.
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(7):E310–E314.
11.
MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009; 6(7):e1000097.
12.
Pezelj-RibarićS, PrpićJ, MiletićI, et al.Association between oral lichenoid reactions and amalgam restorations. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2008; 22:1163–1167.
13.
MartinMD, DrangsholtM. Oral lichenoid lesions associated with dental amalgam restorations: a 60-year-old woman with a 7-year history of painful, erosive mucosal lesions. J Evid Based Dent Pract, 2005; 5(3):131–138.
14.
PawarR, MattigattiS, MahaparaleR, et al.Lichenoid reaction associated with silver amalgam restoration in a Bombay blood group patient: a case report. J Conserv Dent, 2016; 19(3):289.
SkoglundA, EgelrudT. Hypersensitivity reactions to dental materials in patients with lichenoid oral mucosal lesions and in patients with burning mouth syndrome. Eur J Oral Sci, 1991; 99(4):320–328.
19.
McGivernB, PembertonM, TheakerED, et al.Delayed and immediate hypersensitivity reactions associated with the use of amalgam. Br Dent J, 2000; 188(2):73–76.
20.
MårellL, TillbergA, WidmanL, et al.Regression of oral lichenoid lesions after replacement of dental restorations. J Oral Rehabil, 2014; 41(5):381–391.
21.
LygreGB, GjerdetNR, GrønningsæterAG, et al.Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials—intraoral observations at a clinical follow-up. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 2003; 31(3):200–206.
22.
LangworthS, BjörkmanL, ElinderCG, et al.Multidisciplinary examination of patients with illness attributed to dental fillings. J Oral Rehabil, 2002; 29(8):705–713.
23.
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(1):10–15.
24.
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(4):459–465.
25.
LaineJ, KalimoK, HapponenRP. Contact allergy to dental restorative materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 36(3):141–146.
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(5):323–328.
27.
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(3):422–430.
28.
KaratasliB, KaratasliG, MeteO, et al.Healing of oral lichenoid lesions following replacement of dental amalgam restorations with feldspathic ceramic inlay-onlay restorations: clinical results of a follow-up period varied from three months up to five years. Biomed Res Int, 2018; 2018:1–7.
29.
WongL, FreemanS. Oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) and mercury in amalgam fillings. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48(2):74–79.
30.
IssaY, DuxburyAJ, MacfarlaneTV, et al.Oral lichenoid lesions related to dental restorative materials. Br Dent J, 2005; 198(6):361–366.
31.
HenrikssonE, MattssonU, HåkanssonJ. Healing of lichenoid reactions following removal of amalgam: a clinical follow-up. J Clin Periodontol, 1995; 22(4):287–294.
32.
HayIC, OrmerodAD. Severe oral and facial reaction to 6 metals in restorative dentistry. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38(4):216.
33.
DunscheA, KåstelI, TerheydenH, et al.Oral lichenoid reactions associated with amalgam: improvement after amalgam removal. Br J Dermatol, 2003; 148(1):70–76.
34.
BratelJ, HakebergM, JontellM. Effect of replacement of dental amalgam on oral lichenoid reactions. J Dent, 1996; 24(1–2):41–45.
35.
AggarwalV, JainA, KabiD. Oral lichenoid reaction associated with tin component of amalgam restorations: a case report. Am J Dermatopathol, 2010; 32(1):46–48.
36.
BircherAJ, von SchulthessA, HenningG. Oral lichenoid lesions and mercury sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 29(5):275–276.
37.
SharmaR, HandaS, DeD, et al.Role of dental restoration materials in oral mucosal lichenoid lesions. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol, 2015; 81(5):478–484.
38.
Lopes de OliveiraLM, BatistaLHC, NetoAPDS, et al.Oral lichenoid lesion manifesting as desquamative gingivitis: unlikely association? Case report. Open Dent J, 2018; 12:679–686.
39.
SkoglundA.Value of epicutaneous patch testing in patients with oral, mucosal lesions of lichenoid character. Eur J Oral Sci, 1994; 102(4):216–222.
40.
MobackenH, HersleK, SlobergK, et al.Oral lichen planus: hypersensitivity to dental restoration material. Contact Dermatitis, 1984; 10(1):11–15.
41.
LundströmIMC.Allergy and corrosion of dental materials in patients with oral lichen planus. Int J Oral Surg, 1984; 13(1):16–24.
42.
Lopez-JornetP, Camarcho-AlonsoF, Gomez-GarciaF, et al.The clinicopathological characteristics of oral lichen planus and its relationship with dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc, 1999; 130(4):210–218.
43.
LaeijendeckerR, DekkerSK, BurgerPM, et al.Oral lichen planus and allergy to dental amalgam restorations. Arch Dermatol, 2004; 140(12):1434–1438.
44.
JamesJ, FergusonMM, ForsythA, et al.Oral lichenoid reactions related to mercury sensitivity. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 1987; 25(6):474–480.
45.
FinneK, GöranssonK, WincklerL. Oral lichen planus and contact allergy to mercury. Int J Oral Surg, 1982; 11(4):236–239.
46.
BolewskaJ, HolmstrupP, Møller-MadsenB, et al.Amalgam associated mercury accumulations in normal oral mucosa, oral mucosal lesions of lichen planus and contact lesions associated with amalgam. J Oral Pathol Med, 1990; 19(1):39–42.
47.
ÖstmanPO, AnnerothG, SkoglundA. Oral lichen planus lesions in contact with amalgam fillings: a clinical, histologic, and immunohistochemical study. Eur J Oral Sci, 1994; 102(3):172–179.
48.
KatoY, HayakawaR, ShirakiR, et al.A case of lichen planus caused by mercury allergy. Br J Dermatol, 2003; 148(6):1268–1269.
49.
LindPO, HurlenB, Strømme KoppangH. Electrogalvanically-induced contact allergy of the oral mucosa. Report of a case. Int J Oral Surg, 1984; 13(4):339–345.
50.
StejskalVDM, ForsbeckM, CederbrantKE, et al.Mercury-specific lymphocytes: an indication of mercury allergy in man. J Clin Immunol, 1996; 16(1):31–40.
51.
BolewskaJ, HansenHJ, HolmstrupP, et al.Oral mucosal lesions related to silver amalgam restorations. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1990; 70(1):55–58.
52.
KlaisiriA, IamaroonA, NeffA, et al.Oral lichenoid lesion related to dental amalgam: a case report. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019; 120(6):591–594.
53.
Lartitegui-SebastiánMJ, Martínez-RevillaB, Saiz-GarciaC, et al.Oral lichenoid lesions associated with amalgam restorations: a prospective pilot study addressing the adult population of the Basque country. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2012; 17(4):e545–e549.
54.
HiremathSK, KaleAD, CharantimathS. Oral lichenoid lesions: clinico-pathological mimicry and its diagnostic implications. Indian J Dent Res, 2011; 22(6):827–834.
55.
LachapelleJM, RingJ, DarsowU, et al.Patch Testing and Prick Testing: A Practical Guide Official Publication of the ICDRG. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2009.
56.
NakadaT, HostynekJJ, MaibachHI. Use tests: ROAT (repeated open application test)/PUT (provocative use test): an overview. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43(1):1–3.
57.
MaibachH, FregertS, MagnussonB, et al.Quantification of the excited skin syndrome (the “angry back”) retesting one patch at a time. Contact Dermatitis, 1982; 8(1):78.
58.
MaibachHI. The E.S.S.—excited skin syndrome (alias the “angry back”). In: New Trends in Allergy. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1981:208–221.
59.
ZhaiH, ChewAL, BashirSJ, et al.Provocative use test of nickel coins in nickel-sensitized subjects and controls. Br J Dermatol, 2003; 149(2):311–317.
Van der MeijEH, ReibelJ, SlootwegPJ, et al.Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the histologic assessment of oral lichen planus. J Oral Pathol Med, 1999; 28(6):274–277.
62.
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(4):233–240.
MontebugnoliL, VenturiM, GissiDB, et al.Clinical and histologic healing of lichenoid oral lesions following amalgam removal: a prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2012; 113(6):766–772.
