CLINICAL AND MATERIALS SCIENCES The Sensitizing Potential of Periodontal Dressings

The sensitizing potential of three periodontal dress-ing materials was evaluated by the guinea pig maxi-mization test. The results indicated a difference in the sensitization rate of the three materials. J Dent Res 57(11-12):950-953, Nov.-Dec. 1978 Many of the materials and medicaments that are used in daily dental practice contain sub-stances that may induce allergic reactions of the oral mucosa or the skin. The presence of saliva and the vascularization of the oral mucosa make it less subject to irritant and allergic reactions than the skin.1 However, when the potential allergen is applied re-peatedly to traumatized tissue, under oc-cluding dressing or in high concentration, the possibility of a sensitization increases.1 These requirements are met by the place-ment of periodontal dressing materials after gingival surgery. Relatively few cases of allergic contact stomatitis caused by perio-dontal dressing materials have been re-ported.2-5 However, many allergic reactions may avoid registration as such. An im-mediate-type allergic reaction (type I) may have a dramtic course4, but a delayed-type response (type IV) occurring 8-24 hours after a periodontal surgical treatment might tend to be accounted for or obscured by postoperative swelling and pain. Other forms of contact stomatitis caused by perio-dontal dressings need not fall into the classical concept of type I, II, III or IV reac-tions.5 Periodontal dressings based on zinc oxide/eugenol preparations have been used for many years. The potential risk of inducing allergy to eugenol by these types of materials has been investigated.23 The conclusion was that periodontal dressings containing eugenol or colophony ought to be avoided.3 However, little is known about the sensi-tizing potential of non-eugenol containing dressings. The aim of the present study was to compare the sensitizing potential of thre