Denture stomatitis associated with allergic reaction to teeth prostheses.

Abstract

DENTURE STOMATITIS ASSOCIATED WITH ALLERGIC REACTION ON THE TEETH PROSTHESTES. Burning symptoms of oral cavity in pathients with teeth prostheses often indicate on possible of allergic reaction. In case that exist diffuse inflammation of the maxillary denture-bearning area with or without cracking and inflammation of the oral commisures ew can talk about denture stomatitis. If chronic atrophic candidiasis and palatal papillary hyperplasia are present under a poorly fitting denture, the palatal mucosa will be velvety and bleed on slight prssure (Fig. 1., Fig. 2. and Fig. 3.). Pain and burning are usually reported during periods of exacerbation, but the red raw area will persist for years as long as the denture worn. Significantly raised antibody titers against Candida albicans are found in both serum and saliva in chronic atrophic candidiasis, and the number of yeasts and mycelia present in palatal and angular lesions much fewer than in acute candidiasis. It was reason because we compared possibility of allergic reactions on the new and old teeth prostheses.We tested 3 groups of patients. Group I (15 patients) had new prostheses (1-6 months old), group II (15 patients) had old ones (6 months – 5 years) and group III (control group of 10 volunters) had 5 people with new and 5 with old prostheses. Allergic reaction was found by clinical and pathological tests on oral mucosa. Smears from oral mucosa and also from prostheses matrial was cultivated on Sabouraud agar to isolate colony of Candida (Fig. 4.) and on blood agar to isolate bacteria colony. To found possible allergic reaction on prostheses material we provided patch test with specimens of old or new prostheses + test on chromium, nickel, molybdenum and acrylates and by Candidin and bacterial vaccina intradermal (i.d.) test to confirmed positive reaction on thic microorganisns. The results (Fig. 5.) showed that in I group 14 patients had a positive reaction on acrylates, 2 on chromium, nickel and molybdenum and 3 on both and only one was positive on new prosthesis mareial. Smears from mouth were in one positive on Candida in 2 on miwed Gram+ and Gram- microorganisms and in other negative (saprophytes). Candidin and bacterial vaccine i.d. test were in all negative. In group II 8 patients were positive on old prosthesis material, 2 on acrylates and on chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo) legure. From smears in these group we isolated in 9 mixed Gram+ and Gram- microorganisms (on blood agar), 4 Candida (Sabouraud agar) and others were negative. We found also mycotic elements and bacteria in particles of prosthesis material in 4 cases. Candidian and bacterial vaccina i.d. test were positive in 10 patients. In control group III only one showed positive reaction on acrylates and smears were positive on bacteria and mycotic elements in all 5 having old prosthesis. Candidin and bacterial vaccina i.d. test were positive in 3 of them. So we can conclude that pathological reactions in group I is true allergy on material from which prosthesis was made and in group II we have more often toxo-allergic or pseudoallergic reactions on bacteria and mycotic elements both in mouth or in prosthesis material.