{"title":"Patch Test Reactions to Dental Materials: A Retrospective Single-Centre Study","authors":"Mojca Bizjak-Suran, Manca Marčun, Mitja Košnik, Dejan Dinevski","doi":"10.1111/cod.70205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Patch testing is used when delayed-type hypersensitivity to dental materials is suspected, but no European baseline series exists for patients with suspected allergy to dental materials.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To describe patch test positivity to a 24-allergen dental series, assess the added yield of late readings at D6/7 and characterise methacrylate reactivity patterns.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In this retrospective single-centre study, 439 adults referred between 2016 and 2025 for suspected allergy to dental materials were patch tested with an institutional 24-allergen dental series comprising 11 metals, 8 methacrylates and 5 other substances. Reactions were read on D3 and D6/7 and scored by ICDRG criteria.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, 50.1% of patients had at least one positive reaction, and 41.0% had a positive metal reaction. Nickel (23.0%) and palladium (16.6%) were the most frequent allergens. Amongst methacrylates, HEMA (3.6%), HPMA (3.0%) and EGDMA (2.5%) were most frequent. Amongst methacrylate-positive patients, 44.4% had two or more positive reactions, 40.7% were HEMA-negative and 14.8% were HEMA-negative but HPMA-positive. Across all allergens, 19.8% of positive reactions were detectable only at D6/7, corresponding to a 24.7% relative increase in detection compared with D3 alone.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Late readings improved detection, and methacrylate reactivity was not fully captured by HEMA alone.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"95 4","pages":"386-395"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.70205","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Dermatitis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cod.70205","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Patch testing is used when delayed-type hypersensitivity to dental materials is suspected, but no European baseline series exists for patients with suspected allergy to dental materials.
Objectives
To describe patch test positivity to a 24-allergen dental series, assess the added yield of late readings at D6/7 and characterise methacrylate reactivity patterns.
Methods
In this retrospective single-centre study, 439 adults referred between 2016 and 2025 for suspected allergy to dental materials were patch tested with an institutional 24-allergen dental series comprising 11 metals, 8 methacrylates and 5 other substances. Reactions were read on D3 and D6/7 and scored by ICDRG criteria.
Results
Overall, 50.1% of patients had at least one positive reaction, and 41.0% had a positive metal reaction. Nickel (23.0%) and palladium (16.6%) were the most frequent allergens. Amongst methacrylates, HEMA (3.6%), HPMA (3.0%) and EGDMA (2.5%) were most frequent. Amongst methacrylate-positive patients, 44.4% had two or more positive reactions, 40.7% were HEMA-negative and 14.8% were HEMA-negative but HPMA-positive. Across all allergens, 19.8% of positive reactions were detectable only at D6/7, corresponding to a 24.7% relative increase in detection compared with D3 alone.
Conclusions
Late readings improved detection, and methacrylate reactivity was not fully captured by HEMA alone.
期刊介绍:
Contact Dermatitis is designed primarily as a journal for clinicians who are interested in various aspects of environmental dermatitis. This includes both allergic and irritant (toxic) types of contact dermatitis, occupational (industrial) dermatitis and consumers" dermatitis from such products as cosmetics and toiletries. The journal aims at promoting and maintaining communication among dermatologists, industrial physicians, allergists and clinical immunologists, as well as chemists and research workers involved in industry and the production of consumer goods. Papers are invited on clinical observations, diagnosis and methods of investigation of patients, therapeutic measures, organisation and legislation relating to the control of occupational and consumers".