SummaryNickel-containing alloys are widely used in orthodontic appliances, even though nickel is by far the most common contact allergen. However, the scientific evidence concerning allergic reactions to nickel in orthodontic patients has not been evaluated systematically. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the prevalence of nickel hypersensitivity is affected by orthodontic treatment. Unrestricted electronic and manual searches were performed until July 2013 for human clinical studies assessing orthodontic treatment and nickel hypersensitivity. Methodological limitations were evaluated with the Downs and Black tool. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from random-effects meta-analyses, followed by subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Thirty studies were included in the review, and 24 datasets with 10 184 patients in the meta-analyses. Orthodontic treatment had no significant effect on nickel hypersensitivity (n = 11; crude OR 0.99; 95%CI: 0.78-1.25; p = 0.914). However, when confounding from factors such as sex and piercings was taken into account, orthodontic treatment was associated with a lower risk of hypersensitivity (n = 1; adjusted OR 0.60; 95%CI: 0.40-0.80; p < 0.001). This was even more pronounced when orthodontic treatment was performed prior to piercing (n = 7; crude OR 0.35; 95%CI: 0.24-0.50; p < 0.001). Orthodontic treatment seems to have a protective role against nickel hypersensitivity, especially when it precedes piercings.Key words: contact dermatitis; meta-analysis; nickel allergy; nickel hypersensitivity; orthodontics; piercing.Nickel allergy is by far the most common contact allergy in the industrial world, with a prevalence of up to 30%, depending on age, sex, and ethnicity (1, 2). Possible sources for nickel sensitization include jewellery, clothing fasteners, mobile phones, and, in particular, (ear) piercings. The last of these contributes to female patients being affected twice as often as men (3). Because of
Accepted for publication 24 February 2015the increasing rate of nickel sensitization, the Danish Ministry of Environment mandated in 1992 that release from nickel-containing products in prolonged contact with the skin should be <0.5 μg/cm 2 , which subsequently decreased the prevalence of nickel allergy (4, 5). The EU followed its example with similar legislation in 1994 (6), which led to other reports of reduced nickel sensitization (25.8% as compared with 36.7%) (7). In contrast, the rate of nickel hypersensitivity has steadily increased in North America, where such regulatory mechanisms against nickel are lacking (1).Nickel-containing alloys exist in a wide variety of appliances and auxiliary devices used in orthodontics, with a content of up to 55% by weight. Likewise, the in vivo release of nickel ions varies greatly, from 0. to 105.7 μg/l, according to the alloy type, body fluid, temperature, mechanical stress, or pH (8, 9). In general, orthodontic materials are considered to be highly biocompatible ...