Dental Metal Allergy in Patients With Oral, Cutaneous, and Genital Lichenoid Reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The subject of lichen planus (LP) and dental metal allergy long has been debated. An overwhelming majority of the existing literature focuses on mercury and gold salts in relation to oral lichen planus. Objective: Our objective was to expand current knowledge regarding LP and lichenoid lesions (LL) and dental metal allergy by investigating more metals and investigating cutaneous and genital disease in addition to oral disease. Methods: Fifty-one patients with known LP or LL were patch tested to a series of dental metals. Patients chose to replace their dental metals or make no revision. A telephone survey was conducted after 1 year to determine disease state. Results: Thirty-eight of 51 patients (74.5%) had at least 1 positive reaction. Twenty-five of 51 patients (49.0%) showed sensitivity to at least 1 mercurial allergen. Prevalence data for patients patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 1996 to 1998 was available for chromate, cobalt, gold, nickel, and thimerosal. The prevalence of positive reactions was higher in our group than in the NACDG group for all 5 of these allergens, and statistical significance was achieved for chromate (P= .028), gold (P= .041), and thimerosal (P= .005). Of patients who had a positive patch test reaction to 1 or more metals, 100% (9 of 9) reported improvement after metal replacement, whereas 62.5% (15 of 24) reported improvement without metal replacement. Conclusion: Sensitization to dental metals is more common among LP and LL patients than in routinely tested patients, and might be an etiologic or triggering factor in the disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".