Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26557634›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2015

Allergic Reactions to Dental Materials-A Systematic Review.

Meena Syed, Radhika Chopra, Vinod Sachdev

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 169 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Advances in Periodontal Therapy: A Comprehensive Review ofCurrent drug discovery technologies · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Biocompatibility and acid resistance of preformed crowns in children: an in vitro study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Meena SyedPost Graduate Student, Department of Pedodontics, ITS-CDSR Centre for Dental studies and Research , Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India .
Radhika ChopraAssociate Professor, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, ITS-CDSR Centre for Dental studies and Research , Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India .
Vinod SachdevProfessor, HOD and Principal, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, ITS-CDSR Centre for Dental studies and Research , Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India .
Santosh University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUtility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing allergic reactions to the patient, technician and dentist. This review aims to develop a systematic approach for the selection and monitoring of dental materials available in the market thereby giving an insight to predict their risk of inducing allergic reactions. MATERIALS AND

methodsOur data included 71 relevant articles which included 60 case reports, 8 prospective studies and 3 retrospective studies. The source of these articles was Pub Med search done with the following terms: allergies to impression materials, sodium hypochlorite, Ledermix paste, zinc oxide eugenol, formaldehyde, Latex gloves, Methyl methacrylate, fissure sealant, composites, mercury, Nickel-chromium, Titanium, polishing paste and local anaesthesia. All the relevant articles and their references were analysed. The clinical manifestations of allergy to different dental materials based on different case reports were reviewed.

resultsAfter reviewing the literature, we found that the dental material reported to cause most adverse reactions in patients is amalgam and the incidence of oral lichenoid reactions adjacent to amalgam restorations occur more often than other dental materials.

conclusionThe most common allergic reactions in dental staff are allergies to latex, acrylates and formaldehyde. While polymethylmethacrylates and latex trigger delayed hypersensitivity reactions, sodium metabisulphite and nickel cause immediate reactions. Over the last few years, due to the rise in number of patients with allergies from different materials, the practicing dentists should have knowledge about documented allergies to known materials and thus avoid such allergic manifestations in the dental clinic.

Indexed as

Adverse reactionContact dermatitisDental settingHypersensitivity reactionOral-lichenoid lesions

Identifiers

PMID26557634
PMCPMC4625353
OpenAlexW2192986020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.