ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2021
A Rare Case of Contact Allergy towards Impression Compound Material.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracellular Vesicles and Hydrogels: An Innovative Approach to Tissue Regeneration.ACS omega · 2024Review
- Hydrogels: Properties and Applications in Biomedicine.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impression compound has been introduced for more than 100 years. Since then, it has been widely used to obtain a preliminary impression of the edentulous arch. Although the use of impression compound has declined markedly over recent years as newer materials have become available, the cost-effectiveness and desirable physical and mechanical properties make this material indispensable in developing countries and teaching institutions. Its high viscosity characterizes impression compound as a mucocompressive impression material, which enables the full depth of the sulcus to be recorded for the retention of complete dentures. Literature reviews revealed that most contact allergies to impression materials are towards polyether, very few are towards alginate and polysulfide, and no reported cases have been found toward impression compound. This case report demonstrates a recent rare case of contact allergy towards impression compound during a routine impression taking for a fully edentulous arch in a 61-year-old woman. The patient developed symptoms of an allergic reaction, and the management of the condition was described.
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.