Abstract
Data sources
Medline (1966–2000), Embase (1980–2000) and the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2000) were reviewed along with reference lists of existing relevant reviews.
Study selection
Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCT), cohort or case–control; reported in English; and dealt with amalgam restoration replacement in people who had oral lichenoid lesions (OLL).
Data extraction and synthesis
Data were extracted that related to: study design; patient characteristics; position and type of OLL; details of histological confirmation and of patch test results; the number of patients receiving replacement restorations; duration of follow-up; and healing. No meta-analyses could be carried out because of the heterogeneity of the studies.
Results
In total, 14 cohort and five case–controlled studies, of variable quality and including a total of 1158 participants, met the criteria. Patient ages ranged from 23–79 years. In all, 636 of the 1158 people whose OLL was suspected to be related to their amalgam restorations had these replaced with alternative materials. Positive skin patch test (SPT) results for more than one mercury compound varied widely between studies from a low of 16% to a high of 92%. Different criteria were used to select patients who needed their amalgam restorations replacing, and also for whether the contacting restoration or all amalgam restorations were replaced. Follow-up periods varied from 2–114 months. The proportion of individuals achieving complete healing varied from 37% to 100% although, in total, 15% of patients showed no improvement after replacement of their amalgam restorations.
Conclusions
In some people who have OLL, lesions may be seen to improve or heal following replacement of amalgam restorations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Dunsche A, Kastel I, Terheyden H, Springer IN, Christophers E, Brasch J. Oral lichenoid reactions associated with amalgam: improvement after amalgam removal. Br J Dermatol 2003; 148:70–76.
Issa Y, Duxbury AJ, Macfarlane TV, Brunton PA . Oral lichenoid lesions related to dental restorative materials. Br Dent J 2005; 198:361–366, 549,
Laeijendecker R, Dekker SK, Burger PM, Mulder PG, Van Joost T, Neumann MH . Oral lichen planus and allergy to dental amalgam restorations. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140:1434–1438.
Lopez-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F, Gomez-Garcia F, Bermejo Fenoll A . The clinicopathological characteristics of oral lichen planus and its relationship with dental materials. Cont Derm 2004; 51:210–211.
Thornhill MH, Pemberton MN, Simmons RK, Theaker ED . Amalgam-contact hypersensitivity lesions and oral lichen planus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 95:291–299.
Thornhill MH, Sankar V, Xu XJ, et al. The role of histopathological characteristics in distinguishing amalgam-associated oral lichenoid reactions and oral lichen planus. J Oral Pathol Med 2006; 35:233–240.
Koch P, Bahmer FA . Oral lesions and symptoms related to metals used in dental restorations: a clinical, allergological, and histologic study. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999; 41:422–430.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: AJ Duxbury, Unit of Oral Medicine, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester M15 6FH, UK.
Issa Y, Brunton PA, Glenny AM, Duxbury AJ. Healing of oral lichenoid lesions after replacing amalgam restorations: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004; 98:553–565
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thornhill, M. Oral lichenoid lesions and amalgam fillings. Evid Based Dent 7, 74–75 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400430
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400430
