Does Metal Hypersensitivity Have Relevance in Patients Undergoing TMJ Prosthetic Replacement?

Purpose: Although concerns regarding implant-related metal hypersensitivity exist, no guidelines have been accepted for screening or treatment of patients with metal sensitivity before temporomandibular joint replacement (TMJR). The present study aimed to determine the trends in TMJR metal sensitivity screening and the effect of positive test results on patient treatment.

Materials And Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to members of the American Society of Temporomandibular Joint Surgeons and the European Society of Temporomandibular Joint Surgeons using a web-based data collection and analysis tool. The questions aimed to establish the screening methods used to establish a diagnosis of metal hypersensitivity and any changes in management when metal hypersensitivity had been documented.

Results: A total of 72 responses (32.43%) were collected through the survey, with respondents primarily practicing in the United States (47.22%). Of the participants, 75% believed that metal hypersensitivity occurs with TMJR and only 2.77% did not. Most agreed that patients should be questioned about any metal sensitivities before consideration for TMJR (91.66%), and 80.55% routinely asked their patients if they had a previous sensitivity to any metals. Nickel was the most commonly encountered metal allergen (64.28%). If a metal allergy were reported, 44.28% of surgeons would refer the patient to determine the specific metal allergen. The diagnosis for metal allergy was based primarily on patient signs and symptoms (52.85%) and an allergist or dermatologist consultation (44.28%). The lymphocyte transformation test was the test most used by respondents to confirm the diagnosis. Of the surgeons, 41.42% would choose to observe/monitor as their first choice for patients testing positive for metal hypersensitivity. In the case of a "mild" reaction to metal hypersensitivity testing, 54.28% would alter their implant choice to a nonreactive metal component. For "severe" reactions to preoperative metal hypersensitivity testing, 62.85% would alter their implant choice to a nonreactive metal component, and 22.85% would choose not to perform TMJR.

Conclusions: The results from the present study have demonstrated that respondent TMJ surgeons agree that metal hypersensitivity occurs with TMJR. However, their approaches to screening and managing metal hypersensitivity vary. Further research of this topic is required to eventually develop specific management pre- and postoperative guidelines for the treatment of patients with metal sensitivities.