Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32607604›Full record

ArticleProgress in orthodontics2020

Symptoms of titanium and nickel allergic sensitization in orthodontic treatment.

Martina Zigante, Marijana Rincic Mlinaric, Marija Kastelan, Vjera Perkovic, Magda Trinajstic Zrinski, Stjepan Spalj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Immune Responses in Orthodontic Treatment.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. A comprehensive summary of disease variants implicated in metal allergy.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2022
    Review
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

6 authors.

Martina ZiganteDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Kresimirova 40, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia. martina.zigante@uniri.hr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3144-1530
Marijana Rincic MlinaricOrthodontic Office Rincic Mlinaric, Katarine Zrinske 1, 23000, Zadar, Croatia.
Marija KastelanDepartment of Dermatovenereology, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Medicine, Brace Branchetta 20, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia.
Vjera PerkovicDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Kresimirova 40, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia.
Magda Trinajstic ZrinskiDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Kresimirova 40, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia.
Stjepan SpaljDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Kresimirova 40, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia.

Funding

Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost DOK-09-2018Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost IMUNODENT IP-7500-09-2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe study aimed to evaluate to which extent self-reported symptomatology, age, and sex are predictors of titanium and nickel allergic sensitization in patients in treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances.

methodsThe study analyzed 228 subjects aged 11-45 years (median 18, interquartile range 16-22); 68% of them were females, and 52% were adolescents. The allergic sensitization testing included epicutaneous patch test to titanium, titanium dioxide, titanium oxalate, titanium nitride, and nickel sulfate. The questionnaire on symptoms potentially linked to titanium and nickel sensitization was used.

resultsPrevalence of the allergic sensitization to titanium in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment was 4% (2% only to titanium without nickel) while to nickel 14% (12% nickel without titanium). Hypersensitivity to both metals at the same time was present in 2% of subjects. Sensitization to nickel was more common in females than in males (17 vs. 8%) and much more common in adults than in adolescents with small effect size (20 vs. 8%; p = 0.013). Sensitization to titanium was more common in females than in males (6 vs. 1%) with no difference in age. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that adult age increases the odds for being sensitized to nickel for 2.4 × (95% CI 1.1-5.6; p = 0.044) while watery eyes for 3.7 × (95% CI 1.2-11.1; p = 0.022). None of the symptoms were significant predictors of titanium sensitization.

conclusionAllergic sensitization to titanium and nickel are not very frequent in orthodontic patients, and self-reported symptomatology is a weak predictor of those sensitizations.

Indexed as

HypersensitivityNickelAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrthodontic AppliancesPatch TestsTitaniumYoung AdultNickelTitaniumAllergic sensitizationHypersensitivityNickelOrthodonticsTitanium

Identifiers

PMID32607604
PMCPMC7326753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.