Fogorvosi szemle, 2014 (107. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)
2014-12-01 / 4. szám
139 FOGORVOSI SZEMLE ■ 107. évf. 4. sz. 2014. Irodalom 1. Bakula A, Lugovió-Mihiő L, Situm M, Turcin J, Sinkovic A: Contact allergy in the mouth: diversity of clinical presentations and diagnosis of common allergens relevant to dental practice. Acta Clin Croat 2011; 50: 553-561. 2. Cobos-Fuentes MJ, Martínez-Sahuquillo-Márquez A, Gallardo-Castillo I, Armas-Padrón JR, Moreno-Fernández A, Bullón-Fernández P: Oral lichenoid lesions related to contact with dental materials: a literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009; 14: 514-520. 3. Dotterud LK, Smith-Siversten T: Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult population: a population-based study from Northern Nonway. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 56: 10-15. 4. Jones DH, Beltrani VS: Oral mucosus membrane contact dermatitis. Contact dermatitis 1997; 17: 471-485. 5. Kwangsukstith C, Maibach HI: Effect of age and sex on the induction and elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact dermatitis 1995; 33: 289-298. 6. Mark BJ, Slavin RG: Allergic Contact Dermatitis. Med Clin N Am 2006; 90: 169-185. 7. McDonagh AJG, Wright AL, Cork MJ, Gawkrodger DJ: Nickel sensitivity: the influence of ear piercing and atopy. Br J Dermatol 1992; 126: 16-18. 8. McParland H, Warnakulasuriya S: Oral Lichenoid Contact Lesions to Mercury and Dental Amalgam-A Review. J Biomed Biotechnol doi: 10.1155/2012/589569 9. Nielsen NH, Menné T: Nickel sensitization and ear piercing in an unselected Danish population. Glostrup Allergy Study. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 29: 16-21. 10. Thornhill MH, Sankar V, Xu XJ, Barrett AW, High AS, Odell EW, 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. 11. Torgerson RR, Davis MDP, Bruce AJ, Farmer SA: Contact allergy in oral disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 57: 315-321. 12. Tömösvári E: Allergológiai bőrtesztek kivitelezése és értékelése (Módszertani levél). Országos Bőr- és Nemikórtani Intézet, 1992; 159-166. 13. Vitályos G, Török J, Márton I, Szepesi M, Radios T, Hegedűs Cs: Allergiás betegek fogszabályozó kezelésének lehetőségei. Fogorv Szle 2007; 2: 71-76. 14. Wantke F, Hemmer W, Jahisch R, Götz M: Patch test reactions in children, adults and the elderly, A comparative study in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34: 316-319. Szepesi M, Radios T, Vitályos G, Hegedűs Cs. A follow-up study of patients with dental allergies at University of Debrecen, Faculty of Dentistry The recognition and treatment of allergy is a great challenge for all fields of medicine. The high prevalence of allergic reactions to dental materials and the related financial burden of their treatment make investigation of this disease very important. Our investigation was carried out on patients assigned to our outpatient department for dental allergy test between 1996 and 1998. We determined the distribution of gender and age among the allergic patients in the examined population. We also studied the prevalence of allergic reactions to different dental allergens and the distribution of dental allergens. In a follow-up study we determined the proportion of those patients, who were retreated in conformity with the results of epicutan tests and we followed up the positive effects of these treatments. We have found that dental allergy occurred five times more frequently in women (84%) than in men (16%) and the most affected age group was between 20 to 39 and 40-49 years (31%). Seventy-five percent of the patients suffered from a combination of metal and polymer allergy. The most frequent metal allergen was TEGDMA (triethyleneglycoldimethacrylate) (49,7%). The suggested treatment plan was carried out in 63% of the allergic patients. The applied treatment was successful in 48% of these cases. We experienced that 48% of these patients got rid of their earlier signs and symptoms. Key words: allergy, allergen, polymer, metal
