↓ Skip to main content

Unmet diagnostic needs in contact oral mucosal allergies

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Molecular Allergy, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unmet diagnostic needs in contact oral mucosal allergies
Published in
Clinical and Molecular Allergy, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12948-016-0047-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paola Lucia Minciullo, Giovanni Paolino, Maddalena Vacca, Sebastiano Gangemi, Eustachio Nettis

Abstract

The oral mucosa including the lips is constantly exposed to several noxious stimuli, irritants and allergens. However, oral contact pathologies are not frequently seen because of the relative resistance of the oral mucosa to irritant agents and allergens due to anatomical and physiological factors. The spectrum of signs and symptoms of oral contact allergies (OCA) is broad and a large number of condition can be the clinical expression of OCA such as allergic contact stomatitis, allergic contact cheilitis, geographic tongue, oral lichenoid reactions, burning mouth syndrome. The main etiological factors causing OCA are dental materials, food and oral hygiene products, as they contain flavouring agents and preservatives. The personal medical history of the patient is helpful to perform a diagnosis, as a positive history for recent dental procedures. Sometimes histology is mandatory. When it cannot identify a direct cause of a substance, in both acute and chronic OCA, patch tests can play a pivotal role in the diagnosis. However, patch tests might have several pitfalls. Indeed, the presence of metal ions as haptens and specifically the differences in their concentrations in oral mucosa and in standard preparation for patch testing and in the differences in pH of the medium might result in either false positive/negative reactions or non-specific irritative reactions. Another limitation of patch test results is the difficulty to assess the clinical relevance of haptens contained in dental materials and only the removal of dental materials or the avoidance of other contactant and consequent improvement of the disease may demonstrate the haptens' responsibility. In conclusion, the wide spectrum of clinical presentations, the broad range of materials and allergens which can cause it, the difficult interpretation of patch-test results, the clinical relevance assessment of haptens found positive at patch test are the main factors that make sometimes difficult the diagnosis and the management of OCA that requires an interdisciplinary approach to the patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 19%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 31 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 33 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,375,812
of 24,746,716 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Molecular Allergy
#69
of 216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,072
of 344,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Molecular Allergy
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,746,716 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.