This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Dermatologic Disorders  • Hypersensitivity  • Dermatologic Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Magnus Bruze, MD, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(8):1042-1044.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In this issue of Archives, Reed et al¹ report a retrospective evaluation of patch testing before or after metal device implantation with either orthopedic prostheses or pacemakers. They conclude that patch testing before implantation helped guide the choice of device to be implanted, whereas the value of patch testing after device implantation was less clear. Consequently, they suggest further studies to address the many unanswered questions raised in the article about contact allergy and possible clinical manifestations of implant allergy.

Over the past few decades, various types of implants have been increasingly used for restorative, preventive, and aesthetic reasons, which has contributed to improved quality of life for those patients with the implants. Just as drugs may have adverse effects, implants may have not only beneficial effects for the patient but also noxious ones. One major concern of implants is an allergy to them, which . . . [Full Text of this Article]

BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR ALLERGIC COMPLICATIONS


IMPLANT COMPLICATIONS RELATED TO CONTACT ALLERGY

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS

AUTHOR INFORMATION


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Retrospective Evaluation of Patch Testing Before or After Metal Device Implantation
Kurtis B. Reed, Mark D. P. Davis, Krystal Nakamura, Linda Hanson, and Donna M. Richardson
Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(8):999-1007.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT