Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 2906

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
Table of Contents   
SHORT COMMUNICATION  
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 266-268
Allergic contact stomatitis from bisphenol-a-glycidyl dimethacrylate during application of composite restorations: A case report


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government Dental College, Calicut, Kerala, India
2 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Government Dental College, Calicut, Kerala, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission06-Sep-2010
Date of Decision24-Nov-2010
Date of Acceptance18-Jan-2011
Date of Web Publication4-Jul-2014
 

   Abstract 

Composite resins have revolutionized the field of esthetic dentistry. They are safe to use and usually do not cause any untoward reactions. Allergies to composites are rare, but they do occasionally occur as patients are briefly exposed to the resin before it is polymerized and becomes non-allergenic. Here, we present a case of allergic contact stomatitis due to bis-GMA.

Keywords: Allergic contact stomatitis, bis-GMA, composite

How to cite this article:
Johns DA, Hemaraj S, Varoli RK. Allergic contact stomatitis from bisphenol-a-glycidyl dimethacrylate during application of composite restorations: A case report. Indian J Dent Res 2014;25:266-8

How to cite this URL:
Johns DA, Hemaraj S, Varoli RK. Allergic contact stomatitis from bisphenol-a-glycidyl dimethacrylate during application of composite restorations: A case report. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Apr 6];25:266-8. Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2014/25/2/266/135941
Composite resins have made possible the direct bonding of restorative resin to stained, malposed, fractured, or otherwise damaged teeth requiring esthetic and functional improvement. The development of dental polymers and the technology for their use were the principal factors that ushered in the era of esthetic dentistry and improved and expedited the delivery of dental care. bis-GMA, or 2,2-bis-[4(2-hydroxy-3-methacryloxypropoxy)phenyl]-propane, is an aromatic methacrylate developed by Rafeal Bowen of the National Bureau of Standards in the early 1960s. Although it is widely used, reports of allergic reactions to bis-GMA are rare. In a study of Goon et al. [1] only two of 1322 dental patients showed positive patch test reactions to bis-GMA.


   Case report Top


A female patient aged 23 years reported to the Department of Conservative Dentistry, Government Dental College, Kozhikode, Kerala, with fractured upper central incisors [Figure 1]. There was no history of any systemic illnesses or medication. The patient had a posterior composite restoration in her lower right first molar. A composite restoration in the upper central incisors was given [Figure 2]. She reported to the dental clinic 2 days later with the complaint of a burning sensation and swelling in her upper and lower lips. Clinical examination revealed erythema over the upper and lower lips in close relationship with the restorations. There was fissuring and peeling of the mucosa, besides bleeding spots [Figure 3] and [Figure 4]
Figure 1: Pretreatment view showing fractured maxillary central incisors

Click here to view
Figure 2: Post-treatment view after restoration with composite

Click here to view
Figure 3: Mucosal erythema and fissuring, with bleeding spots

Click here to view
Figure 4: Mucosal erythema and fissuring

Click here to view


Diagnosis

The first step for the recognition of allergy-induced diseases is to obtain a detailed history and carefully examine the clinical course. Hypersensitivity reactions that are cell mediated, such as contact dermatitis, can be confirmed by patch testing. [2] The method involves the epicutaneous application of a specific allergen at a defined concentration and in a defined vehicle; this will induce a cutaneous inflammatory reaction in a sensitized person but will cause no reaction in a non-sensitized person. In our patient, patch testing was performed with the dental screening series (Malmφ, Sweden). Patches were applied to the upper back and occluded for 2 days using the occlusive Finn Chamber (Malmo, Finland) and read on day 3. She showed positive reaction (strongly positive) to bis-GMA 2% pet (2% in petrolatum). Thus, allergic reaction to the restoration was confirmed and the composite restoration was replaced by ceramic crowns.


   Discussion Top


Methacrylic compounds are nowadays widely used in restorative dentistry, and composite resin restorations have almost completely replaced amalgam fillings. Sensitivity to bis-GMA is a rare cause of allergic contact stomatitis in dental patients. When allergy occurs it is because the patient is briefly exposed to the resin before it is polymerized and becomes non-allergenic. [3] Also, it should be noted that the intraoral polymerization is not 100%, and the unpolymerized residual monomer may leach out to sensitize the surrounding oral mucosa. [4] Lφnnroth et al. [5] have shown that the liquid component in resin products has a strong irritation capacity.

Allergic reactions depend on an individual's genetic disposition and previous exposure to the allergen (sensitization). Materials-related reactions could be cell-mediated delayed reactions (type IV) or immediate reactions with humoral antibodies (types I-III). The delayed reactions are characterized by different forms of allergic contact dermatitis or mucositis, in which T-lymphocytes, custom made for the particular allergen, act in concert with other lymphocytes and mononuclear phagocytes to cause swelling, induration, or eczema. The latter form of delayed hypersensitivity is especially important in relation to biomaterials. In a study based on the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare's register of side-effects from dental materials, it was reported that patients and dental practitioners reacted to different dental materials. [6] A conceivable explanation for this is that the exposure is different between the groups. Dental practitioners handle the materials when they are in their most reactive form, whereas patients are generally exposed to set materials. A large number of acrylic monomers are used in dental practice. Multiple sensitivities to various acrylates, particularly methacrylates, are often demonstrated and the cross-reaction patterns can be unpredictable. In addition, producers of acrylates are not legally obliged to list the individual components on the labels, thus adding to the difficulty in correct identification of allergens. For all of these reasons, it is important to patch test patients with samples of their own acrylates and composite resins, as well as those in the various dental impression trays. The patch test concentration ideally should not exceed 1% for composite resins. If higher concentrations are used, there is a risk of sensitization or leukoderma.


   Conclusion Top


The use of acrylics, resins, and polymer materials in restorative dentistry represent a major advance in dentistry. These products may act as allergens in some individuals. One should keep in mind that every technology, no matter how beneficial, can have a negative impact on some members of the population. Public health policy will always involve balancing maximum benefit and minimum harm to public health and well-being.

 
   References Top

1.Goon AT, Isaksson M, Zimerson E, Goh CL, Bruze M. Contact allergy to (meth) acrylates in the dental series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reactions patterns and possible screening allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2006;55:219-26.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Adams S. Allergies in the workplace. Curr Opin related to amalgam. Adv Dent Res 1992; om/terms.shtml Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;19:82-6.   Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Connolly M, Shaw L, Hutchinson I, Ireland A, Dunnill M, Sansom J. Allergic contact dermatitis from bisphenol-Aglycidyldimethacrylate during application of orthodontic fixed appliance. Contact Dermatitis 2006;55:367-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Martin N, Bell HK, Longman LR, King CM. Orofacial reaction to methacrylates in dental materials: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:225-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Lönnroth EC, Dahl JE, Shahnavaz H. Evaluation the potential occupational hazard of handling dental polymer products using the HET-CAM technique. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 1999:5:43-57.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare: The National Register of Side-Effects of Dental Materials - Annual Report for 2001, [2002-125-6] Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen, 2002 (in Swedish).  Back to cited text no. 6
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Sajna Hemaraj
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Government Dental College, Calicut, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.135941

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]

This article has been cited by
1 Non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis to methacrylates – updates
Ana-Maria-Antoaneta Cristea,Elvira-Gabriela Tucu,Elena-Simona Boldeanu
Alergologia. 2019; 1(1): 13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis to methacrylates – updates
Ana-Maria-Antoaneta Cristea,Elvira-Gabriela Tucu,Elena-Simona Boldeanu
Alergologia. 2019; 1(1): 13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Sublingual administration of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate enhances antibody responses to co-administered ovalbumin and Streptococcus mutans
Anna Karin Östberg,Sara Alizadehgharib,Ulf Dahlgren
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2018; 76(5): 351
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Sublingual administration of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate enhances antibody responses to co-administered ovalbumin and Streptococcus mutans
Anna Karin Östberg,Sara Alizadehgharib,Ulf Dahlgren
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2018; 76(5): 351
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Oral Cavity and Allergy: Meeting the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge
Eleni Papakonstantinou,Ulrike Raap
Current Oral Health Reports. 2016; 3(4): 347
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Oral Cavity and Allergy: Meeting the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge
Eleni Papakonstantinou,Ulrike Raap
Current Oral Health Reports. 2016; 3(4): 347
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Case report
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3999    
    Printed69    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded99    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal