ArticleClinical oral investigations2012
A rare allergy to a polyether dental impression material.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- General diseases and medications in 687 patients reporting on adverse effects from dental materials.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- A Rare Case of Contact Allergy towards Impression Compound Material.European journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Allergic Reactions to Dental Materials-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2015Review
- Evaluation of cytotoxicity levels of poly vinyl ether silicone, polyether, and poly vinyl siloxane impression materials: AnJournal of Indian Prosthodontic SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyether impression materials have been used in dentistry for more than 40 years. Allergic reactions to these materials such as reported in the 1970s ceased after replacement of a catalyst. Very recently, however, patients have started to report symptoms that suggest a new allergic reaction from polyether impression materials. Here, we report on the results of allergy testing with polyether impression materials as well as with its components. Eight patients with clinical symptoms of a contact allergy (swelling, redness or blisters) after exposure to a polyether impression material were subjected to patch tests, two of them additionally to a prick test. A further patient with atypical symptoms of an allergy (nausea and vomiting after contact with a polyether impression material in the oral cavity) but with a history of other allergic reaction was also patch tested. The prick tests showed no immediate reactions in the two patients tested. In the patch tests, all eight patients with typical clinical symptoms showed positive reactions to the mixed polyether impression materials, to the base paste or to a base paste component. The patient with the atypical clinical symptoms did not show any positive patch test reactions. Polyether impression materials may evoke type IV allergic reactions. The causative agent was a component of the base paste. In consideration of the widespread use of this impression material (millions of applications per year) and in comparison to the number of adverse reactions from other dental materials, the number of such allergic reactions is very low. In very scarce cases, positive allergic reactions to polyether impression materials are possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.