ArticleCentral European journal of public health2022
Clinical predictors of metal allergic sensitization in orthodontic patients.
Article in Central European journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nickel Allergy and Piercings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Contact dermatitis · 2025Pooled it
- Hypersensitivity in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review of Oral and Extra-Oral Reactions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Metal-Free Prosthodontic Treatment of Periungual Allergic Contact Dermatitis: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Unveiling the Role of Metal Ion Concentration versus Immune Sensitization in Orthodontic Patients-A Long-Term Prospective Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Orthodontic Risk Perspectives among Orthodontists during Treatment: A Descriptive Pilot Study in Greece and Slovakia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the predictors of allergic sensitisation to titanium and nickel in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
methodsA total of 250 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were invited to participate, and 235 were analysed (67% females). A patch test was performed using nickel sulphate, titanium, titanium dioxide, titanium oxalate, titanium nitride, and petrolatum as control. In addition, clinical signs of the oral mucosa, gingiva, tongue, lips, and allergological history were assessed.
resultsThe predictors of metal allergic sensitisation in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were adult age (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.2-5.5; p = 0.016), female sex (OR = 3.0; 95% CI: 1.1-7.9; p = 0.025), exfoliative cheilitis (OR = 4.8; 95% CI: 1.9-12.4; p = 0.001), history of contact hypersensitivity (OR = 7.0; 95% CI: 1.3-35.4; p = 0.025), history of contact hypersensitivity to metals (OR = 8.3; 95% CI: 1.4-50.2; p = 0.021), and piercings (OR = 5.4; 95% CI: 2.1-13.9; p = 0.001). When predictors were analysed separately for these two metals, titanium sensitisation predictors were contact hypersensitivity to metals and piercing, whereas nickel sensitisation predictors were age and piercing.
conclusionA positive patch test alone cannot draw definite conclusions regarding allergy. However, metal allergies in patients with orthodontic appliances could be considered in cases of previous contact hypersensitivity, previous reactions to metals, exfoliative cheilitis, and piercing.
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.