Contact allergies to dental materials in patients.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding contact allergies and intolerance reactions to dental materials are widespread among patients. Development of novel dental materials and less frequent amalgam use may alter sensitization profiles in patients with possible contact allergy. OBJECTIVES: To analyse current sensitization patterns to dental materials in patients with suspected contact allergy. METHODS: This retrospective, multicentre analysis from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) selected participants from 169 834 people tested in 2005-2019 and registered with (i) an affected area of 'mouth' (and 'lips'/'perioral'), (ii) with the dental material in question belonging to one of three groups (dental filling materials, oral implants or dentures or equivalents) and (iii) with patch-testing done in parallel with the German baseline series, (dental) metal series and dental technician series. RESULTS: A total of 2730 of 169 834 tested patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients were predominantly women (81.2%) aged ≥ 40 years (92.8%). The sensitization rates with confirmed allergic contact stomatitis in women (n = 444) were highest for metals (nickel 28.6%, palladium 21.4%, amalgam 10.9%), (meth)acrylates [2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) 4.8%] and the substances propolis (6.8%) and 'balsam of Peru' (11.4%). The most relevant acrylates were HEMA, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and pentaerythritol triacrylate. Few men were diagnosed with allergic contact stomatitis (n = 68); sensitization rates in men were highest for propolis (14.9%) and amalgam (13.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact stomatitis to dental materials is rare. Patch testing should not only focus on metals such as nickel, palladium, amalgam and gold, but also (meth)acrylates and the natural substances propolis and 'balsam of Peru'.

Results of patch testing propolis in the European baseline series: A 4-year retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Propolis was added to the European baseline series (EBS) in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and relevance of positive patch tests to propolis in the EBS and to study co-reactivities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study in patients patch tested between June 2019 and November 2023 in a university hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. RESULTS: Of 3134 consecutive patients, 299 (9.5%) had a positive reaction to propolis 10% pet. Only nine reactions (3%) were judged to be clinically relevant. There were significant co-reactivities to Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru), colophonium, fragrance mixes 1 and 2, and to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides. A steep increase in rates of positive reactions to propolis was observed from 2020 to 2023. This was highly likely the result of the replacement of Chinese propolis with Brazilian propolis by the manufacturer. CONCLUSIONS: Positive patch tests for propolis are very frequent in Amsterdam, but only a few of these reactions are relevant. Most are probably (pseudo-)cross-reactions in patients with fragrance allergies. Propolis in the EBS has very limited value for dermatologists and patients in The Netherlands. Changes in patch test materials should be provided to all users to avoid misinterpretation of patch test results.

Trends in contact sensitization, results, and implications from a contact dermatitis clinic in Israel.

BACKGROUND: The baseline series includes common allergens, evolves over time, and differs by location. Our study aims to characterize allergen sensitization trends among the Israeli population during the last two decades, compare our results to American and European registries, as well as to highlight significant allergens in additional series outside the European baseline series (OEBS). METHODS: We analysed patch test results of 2086 patients from a designated contact dermatitis clinic in Tel Aviv between 2019 and 2022, compared them to European and North American registries and to 2156 patch test results conducted in Israel two decades ago. RESULTS: 38.6% of patients had at least one positive reaction to an allergen in the European baseline series (EBS), nickel sulphate (14.6%), fragrance mix I (4.6%), and Methylchloroisothiazolinone methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI; 3.7%) were the most common among them. N-Isopropyl N-Phenyl-4-Phenylenediamine (NIPPD; 0%), Propolis (0.1%), Sesquiterpene lactone mix (0.1%), and Budesonide (0.1%) elicited a sensitization frequency significantly lower than the proposed threshold for baseline inclusion. Chi-square test revealed a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.05) in the sensitization frequency of fragrance mix I, Formaldehyde, Potassium dichromate, Neomycin sulphate, Myroxylon pereirae, Sesquiterpene lactone, and NIPPD during the last two decades. The overall sensitization frequency to the majority of allergens was lower in our cohort in comparison to the North American and European registries. CONCLUSIONS: MCI/MI and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-2 (HEMA) are common, relevant allergens, with high SPIN (significance and prevalence index number) and should be better regulated by the authorities. While among the EBS, NIPPD, Propolis, Sesquiterpene lactone, and Budesonide usually do not elicit a positive reaction and therefore should be reconsidered in baseline series, among the OEBS, Chloramphenicol, Quaternium 15, Propyl gallate, and Amerchol L101 have elicited high SPIN values and should be vigilantly examined in the suitable clinical scenario. Significantly lower sensitization frequency to propolis raises the possibility of a protective effect due to early oral exposure among the Israeli population.

Underexplored food safety hazards of beekeeping products: Key knowledge gaps and suggestions for future research.

These days, a growing consumer demand and scientific interest can be observed for nutraceuticals of natural origin, including apiculture products. Due to the growing emphasis on environmental protection, extensive research has been conducted on the pesticide and heavy metal contamination of bee products; however, less attention is devoted on other food safety aspects. In our review, scientific information on the less-researched food safety hazards of honey, bee bread, royal jelly, propolis, and beeswax are summarized. Bee products originating from certain plants may inherently contain phytotoxins, like pyrrolizidine alkaloids, tropane alkaloids, matrine alkaloids, grayanotoxins, gelsemium alkaloids, or tutin. Several case studies evidence that bee products can induce allergic responses to sensitive individuals, varying from mild to severe symptoms, including the potentially lethal anaphylaxis. Exposure to high temperature or long storage may lead to the formation of the potentially toxic 5-hydroxymethylfurfural. Persistent organic pollutants, radionuclides, and microplastics can potentially be transferred to bee products from contaminated environmental sources. And lastly, inappropriate beekeeping practices can lead to the contamination of beekeeping products with harmful microorganisms and mycotoxins. Our review demonstrates the necessity of applying good beekeeping practices in order to protect honeybees and consumers of their products. An important aim of our work is to identify key knowledge gaps regarding the food safety of apiculture products.

Behavioral, Biochemical and Histopathological effects of Standardised Pomegranate extract with Vinpocetine, Propolis or Cocoa in a rat model of Parkinson's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Parkinsonism is a neurodegenerative disorder. Pomegranate (POM) has been previously shown to have a dopaminergic neuroprotective effect against parkinsonism. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study is to investigate the possible effect of POM in combination with each of vinpocetine, propolis, or cocoa in the treatment of parkinsonism disease even without being given as adjuvant to L-dopa . METHODS: Rats were divided into seven groups, one normal and six RT model groups. One of the RT groups (2.5 mg/kg/48 h/10 doses sc), for 20 days served as non-treated parkinsonism model, whereas the others were treated with either L-dopa (10 mg/kg, p.o./day) or with POM (150 mg/kg, p.o./day) together with each of the following; vinpocetine (VIN) (20 mg/kg, p.o./day), propolis (300 mg/kg, p.o./day), cocoa (24 mg/kg, p.o./day). Motor and cognitive performances were examined using four tests (catalepsy, swimming, Y-maze, open field). Striatal dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, GABA, glutamate, acetylcholinesterase, GSK-3ß, BDNF levels were assessed as well as MDA, SOD, TAC, IL-1ß, TNF-α, iNOs, and caspase-3. Also, histopathological examinations of different brain regions were determined. RESULTS: Treatment with L-dopa alone or with all POM combination groups alleviated the deficits in locomotor activities, cognition, neurotransmitter levels, acetylcholinesterase activity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory markers as well as caspase-3 expression induced by RT. CONCLUSION: Combinations of POM with each of VIN, propolis, or cocoa have a promising disease-modifying antiparkinsonian therapy even without being given as an adjuvant to L-dopa.

Patch Testing with Propolis of Different Geographical Origins in a Baseline Series.

The chemical composition of propolis varies with geographical origin; however, it is not known whether this affects the frequency of contact allergy to propolis. In order to study the frequency of contact allergy to propolis of different geographical origins and concomitant reactions, 1,470 consecutive patients with dermatitis from Denmark, Lithuania and Spain were patch tested with propolis from China, Lithuania, North America and Sweden, and with a baseline series. Patch test reactions to any type of propolis ranged from 1.3% to 5.8%. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of positive reactions between the 4 types of propolis in the respective countries. Testing with a single commercially available type of propolis detects only approximately half of propolis-allergic patients. In patients allergic to propolis, concomitant reactions to Myroxylon pereirae resin, colophonium and Fragrance mix I were common, ranging from 12.5% to 50.0%.

Contact Allergy in Western Sweden to Propolis of Four Different Origins.

Propolis, which is produced by honeybees and is used in "natural" products, can cause contact allergy. The composition of propolis varies between regions, but little is known about how this variation affects contact allergenicity. The aims of this study were to investigate the frequency of propolis contact allergy in western Sweden, and whether the frequency varies according to the origin of the propolis. Patch-testing was performed using propolis from China, Lithuania, North America, and Sweden in 722 consecutive patients with dermatitis in western Sweden. Frequencies of positive patch-test reactions ranged from 2.4% to 3.6%. There were some, not statistically significant, differences in frequency of contact allergy to the 4 samples of propolis of different origins, with the highest frequency to the sample from China and the lowest frequency to the sample from Sweden. Concomitant positive patch-test reactions to plant and fragrance substances in the baseline series were common, most frequently to Myroxylon pereirae resin and colophonium.

Effects of Brazilian green propolis on proteinuria and renal function in patients with chronic kidney disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a public health problem worldwide, and proteinuria is a well-established marker of disease progression in CKD patients. Propolis, a natural resin produced by bees from plant materials, has anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and anti-oxidant properties, as well as having been shown to have an antiproteinuric effect in experimental CKD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of Brazilian green propolis extract on proteinuria reduction and the changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study including patients with CKD caused by diabetes or of another etiology, 18-90 years of age, with an eGFR of 25-70 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and proteinuria (urinary protein excretion > 300 mg/day) or micro- or macro-albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio > 30 mg/g or > 300 mg/g, respectively). We screened 148 patients and selected 32, randomly assigning them to receive 12 months of Brazilian green propolis extract at a dose of 500 mg/day (n = 18) or 12 months of a placebo (n = 14). RESULTS: At the end of treatment, proteinuria was significantly lower in the propolis group than in the placebo group-695 mg/24 h (95% CI, 483 to 999) vs. 1403 mg/24 h (95% CI, 1031 to 1909); P = 0.004-independent of variations in eGFR and blood pressure, which did not differ between the groups during follow-up. Urinary monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 was also significantly lower in the propolis group than in the placebo group-58 pg/mg creatinine (95% CI, 36 to 95) vs. 98 pg/mg creatinine (95% CI, 62 to 155); P = 0.038. CONCLUSIONS: Brazilian green propolis extract was found to be safe and well tolerated, as well as to reduce proteinuria significantly in patients with diabetic and non-diabetic CKD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ( ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02766036. Registered: May 9, 2016).

Contact allergy to beeswax and propolis among patients with cheilitis or facial dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Beeswax, both white and yellow, has many uses, such as in lip balm. This material can cause contact allergy, although not many cases have been described. METHODS: Ninety-five patients with contact cheilitis, facial eczema or a suspicion of contact allergy to beeswax were patch tested with yellow and white beeswax and with propolis, in addition to the Swedish baseline series. Patients who reacted positively to beeswax were additionally tested with caffeic acid, and two derivatives thereof that are believed to be important haptens in propolis. RESULTS: Seventeen patients had positive reactions to beeswax. Fourteen of these patients had been tested with both yellow and white beeswax. Among those 14, eight had positive reactions to both types of wax, five only to yellow wax, and one only to white wax. Of the 10 wax-positive patients tested with caffeic acid derivatives, three reacted positively. Fourteen beeswax-positive patients also had positive reactions to propolis. CONCLUSION: Patch testing cheilitis patients is important, as contact allergy is common. Our suggestion is to patch test, apart from the baseline series and the patient's own products, also with beeswax and propolis. Many beeswax-allergic cheilitis patients would not have been diagnosed with a relevant contact allergy if only the Swedish baseline series had been used.

Hand eczema among Dutch beekeepers - a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies of beekeepers have mostly focused on contact allergy to propolis. The overall prevalence of hand eczema (HE) in beekeepers has not been studied. Our objectives were to gain insight into the prevalence of HE in the Dutch beekeeper population; to define the impact of beekeeping activities on HE and vice versa; and to determine associated factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a cross-sectional online survey. Dutch beekeepers answered questions on beekeeping activities, the prevalence and characteristics of HE, including severity, and the impact of the disease on beekeeping. RESULTS: We analyzed 833 surveys (12 % of Dutch beekeepers). The one-year prevalence of HE was 13.2 %, and the lifetime prevalence was 20.5 %. In 28 patch-tested beekeepers with hand eczema, eight (28.6 %) were allergic to propolis. Atopic dermatitis was the only variable associated with HE: the odds ratio was 4.53 (95 % confidence interval 2.78-7.38). One in three beekeepers reported that HE was caused or worsened by beekeeping, although only 3.8 % reported working less at beekeeping because of HE, and the impact of HE on beekeeping activities (as perceived by beekeepers) is low. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of Dutch beekeepers, hand eczema was more prevalent than in the general population, but seems to have had little impact on the beekeeping activities of the majority of beekeepers.

Biological and therapeutic properties of bee pollen: a review.

Natural products, including bee products, are particularly appreciated by consumers and are used for therapeutic purposes as alternative drugs. However, it is not known whether treatments with bee products are safe and how to minimise the health risks of such products. Among others, bee pollen is a natural honeybee product promoted as a valuable source of nourishing substances and energy. The health-enhancing value of bee pollen is expected due to the wide range of secondary plant metabolites (tocopherol, niacin, thiamine, biotin and folic acid, polyphenols, carotenoid pigments, phytosterols), besides enzymes and co-enzymes, contained in bee pollen. The promising reports on the antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticariogenic antibacterial, antifungicidal, hepatoprotective, anti-atherosclerotic, immune enhancing potential require long-term and large cohort clinical studies. The main difficulty in the application of bee pollen in modern phytomedicine is related to the wide species-specific variation in its composition. Therefore, the variations may differently contribute to bee-pollen properties and biological activity and thus in therapeutic effects. In principle, we can unequivocally recommend bee pollen as a valuable dietary supplement. Although the bee-pollen components have potential bioactive and therapeutic properties, extensive research is required before bee pollen can be used in therapy. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.

Topical botanically derived products: use, skin reactions, and usefulness of patch tests. A multicentre Italian study.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on the safety of topical preparations containing botanical extracts is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess (i) the use of botanically derived compounds in a large population, (ii) the incidence of cutaneous side-effects, and (iii) the diagnostic usefulness of patch testing. METHODS: A questionnaire was used in 2661 patients to assess both the prevalence and type of topical botanical preparations used, and the occurrence of adverse skin reactions. Patients declaring adverse reactions were patch tested with (i) the Italian (SIDAPA) baseline series, (ii) an additional botanical series, and (iii) the patients' own products. RESULTS: Of the patients, 1274 (48%) reported the use of topical botanical products; 139 patients (11%) commented on adverse cutaneous reactions; 75 (54%) showed positive reactions with the Italian baseline series. Among the 122 patients tested with the botanical series, 19 (16%) showed positive reactions, in many cases with concomitant relevant positivity to at least one allergen of the Italian series connected with cosmetics. The commonest botanically derived allergens were propolis, Compositae extracts, and Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy is a possible adverse effect of natural products. Baseline series supplemented with the commonest botanical allergens may be adequate for detecting most of the cases of contact allergy to natural topical products.