• JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator

ISSN (Print) 1013-9052
EISSN 1658-3558

The Saudi Dental Journal,
P.O. Box 52500,
Riyadh 11563,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Tel.
966-1-467-7328
Fax.
933-1-467-7308 /
966-1-467-7534
Email
saudidj@ksu.edu.sa

Adverse effect of polysulfide impression material:
case report

 

 
Aziza Al Mobeeriek, BDS, MSc. Hana Al-Elshiekh, BDS, MSc.
 College of Dentistry. King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

 

Abstract 

 

Polysulfide rubber is a commonly used impression material in dentistry. However, it has some side effects including foreign body reaction, acute toxic reaction, periodontal destruction, and aspiration emphysema. This report describes a patient who developed a hypersensitivity reaction to polysulfide material following secondary impression for upper and lower complete denture and its management.
 

Introduction

 

Polysulfide rubber is an elastometric material containing large molecules forming a three dimensional network. It is supplied as base and accelerator. The base material consists of low molecular weight organic polymer containing a reactive mercaptan (-SH) group and 20 % reinforcing agent such as titanium dioxide, zinc sulfate, copper, carbonate or silica. The catalyst is composed of lead dioxide with or without manganese dioxide and inert oil. 1'2,3 A contact with living tissues in the mouth may induce adverse tissue reaction such as foreign body reaction, toxicity and hypersensitivity. The most likely induced problem for the patient arises from pieces of impression material being left in the sulcus. The irritations can range from minor to severe reactions. Microscopic examination of the curetted specimen shows an amorphous acellular mass unlike human tissues. However, several authors reported reaction to components of catalysts in elastomer impression materials. A study conducted by Spranley and others (1983) showed that toxicity was not strongly related to lead content.10 It is suggested that the hypersensitive reactions are caused by haptens from the biomaterial combining with mucosal or cuticular proteins to form antigens. The reactions are expressed as delayed hypersensitive reaction of a general or dermal type among dental patients.9. The purpose of this report is to describe a patient who developed hypersensitivity reaction to polysulfide material following secondary impression for upper and lower complete denture.
 

Case Report

 

The patient was a 60 year old female receiving treatment at the dental clinics of King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. A final impression was made by a senior dental student for construction of the upper / lower complete dentures. The impression was made using polysulfide material following the manufacturer's instructions*. After the impression was made, the patient started to develop redness, itching and oedema in the oral and perioral tissues. The next day, she presented with erythema and ulceration in the peri-oral tissues (Fig.l). Careful evaluation was made and the patient was treated with topical corticosteroids (Betamethasone valerate ointment 0.1%) applied four times a day. After seven days, the patient recovered completely with no residual lesion.
 

Discussion & Conclusion

 

Polysulfide rubber is one of the most widely used impression materials in prosthodontics with various adverse effects that have been reported including: foreign body reaction, acute toxic reaction, periodontal destruction, and aspiration emphysema. *"13 Overall, they pose a minor problem in the polymerised form. However, the free or unpolymerized components could leach into the gingival tissue area both on acute basis as well as chronic bases.

Despite the fact that polysulfide is reported to be cytotoxic in vitro,14 the literature lacks cases with allergic reaction to polysulfide. In fact, this is the first reported case in the reviewed literature. However, elastomeric impression materials other than polysulfide, were reported to evoke allergic reactions. Several cases of polyether contact dermatitis and stomatitis have been reported. Most of the cases are due to prolonged contact, particularly with the catalyst of the polyether rubber impression material. The catalyst as well as the freshly mixed polyether elicited positive skin reaction interpreted as being delayed hypersensitivity reaction.14'15

It is claimed that alkylbensone sulfate in the catalyst of polyether is the cause of irritation.14'6 However, other pathogenic mechanisms and etiologic factors responsible for the reactions observed should also be considered.

The signs and symptoms that developed in this case are those of delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In the literature, it is suggested that the low molecular weight of the components may act as a hapten. Haptens are non-antigenic substances. They usually have small molecular weight chemical groups. By themselves, they are not immunogenic and require a link to body proteins to produce immunogenic reaction.


Summary

 

Polysulfide rubber impression materials are certified by the ADA, but adverse responses may be encountered and one should be aware of and recognize these responses and be prepared to treat them properly.
 

References

 

  1. Phillips WR. Skinner's science of dental materials. 9th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company , 1991 :137.
  2. O'Brien and Ryge. An outline of dental materials and their selection. 1st ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1978 :131
  3. Craig R, O'Brien W, and Power J. Dental materials properties and manipulation. 5th ed. Mosby, yearbook, st. Louis, 1992.
  4. Pullon, PA. and Miller, AS. Yellow nodule in vestibule. Gen - Dent 1981; Sept - Oct 29 (5): 396-399.
  5. Eliasson, ST. and Holte, NO. Rubber-base impression material as a foreign body: Report of a case. Oral-Surg-Oral-Med-Oral- Pathol 1979 Oct; 48(4): 379-80.
  6. Evans-GH. Rubber base impression material. Oral-Surg-Oral-Med-Oral-Pathol, 1990 Oct; 70(4): 523
  7. Clark, S. Rubber-base foreign body. J Prosthet Dent 1974 Apr; 31(4): 439-40.
  8. Winstock, D. and Wamakulasuriya, S. Impression material presenting in the maxillary antrum as foreign body. Br Dent J 1986 Jan; 160(2): 545.
  9. Dahl, BL Hensten-Pettersen, A. Lyberg, T. Assessment of adverse reactions to prosthodontic materials. J Oral Rehabil 1990 May; 17(3): 279-86.
  10. Spranley, TJ. Gettleman, L. Zimmerman, KL. Acute tissue irritation of polysulfide rubber impression materials. J Dent Res 1983 May; 62(5): 548-51.
  11. Hensten-Pettersen, A. Jacobsen, N. Perceived side effects of biomaterials in prosthetic dentistry. JPD 1991 Jan; 65(1): 138.
  12. Cameron, SM. Whitlock, WL Tabor, MS. Foreign body aspiration in dentistry: A review. JADA 1996 Aug; 127(8): 1224.
  13. Heyman, SN. and Babof -I. Emphysematous complications in dentistry , 1960- 1993: an illustrative case and review of the literature. Quintessence-lnt 1995 Aug; 26 (8): 535.
  14. Shiloah, J. Schuman, N. Couington, J. Turner, J. Periodontal hazards of retained impression materials. Quintessence-lnt 1988; 19(2): 143.
  15. Hensten-Pettersen, A. Nilner, K. Moller, B. Guinea pig maximization test with a polyether impression material. Scand Res 1990 Aug; 98(4): 356-62.
  16. Craig, RG. Status report on polyether impression materials. Council on dental materials and devices. JADA 1977 Jul; 95(1): 126.
  17. Barrett, JT. Medical Immunology: text and review. 1st ed. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company, 1991: 16.
 
Tables

 

87-1

 
Website designed and maintained by DeltaCAS