Evidence Hub

Clinical resolution of oral lichenoid lesions after amalgam replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Kothari H, Pawar AM, Gupta P, Luke AM, Hamad Ingafou MS, Banga P, Karobari MI, Wahjuningrum DA

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research, 2026

365 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Introduction: Oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) can mimic oral lichen planus but are often linked to contact with dental amalgam. Replacement with biocompatible materials has been associated with lesion resolution, yet prior evidence lacked quantitative synthesis.

Materials and methods: Following PRISMA 2020 (PROSPERO: CRDXXXXXXXXXX2), eight databases (1986-2024) were searched for adult in vivo studies reporting OLL resolution after amalgam replacement. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed bias (ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, JBI). Random-effects meta-analysis estimated pooled odds ratios (OR) for clinical resolution; certainty was graded with GRADE.

Results: Of 2368 records, 35 studies were qualitatively synthesized and 11 entered meta-analysis (N = 365). Amalgam was replaced with glass ionomer, ceramics, composite resin, or gold alloys. Replacement markedly increased odds of lesion resolution (OR = 122.18; 95 % CI: 55.64-268.26; p 2 = 42 %). Risk of bias across observational studies was generally low to moderate. Funnel-plot asymmetry and Egger's test (p < 0.001) suggested publication bias; overall certainty was moderate. Subgroup analyses indicated greater benefit when lesions had direct amalgam contact, when patch testing was positive, and when ceramics or gold were used. Sensitivity analyses supported strength of the primary findings.

Conclusion: Amalgam replacement was linked with substantially higher odds of OLL resolution. However,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 365 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free