There are concerns about the induction of metal allergy with second‐generation metal‐on‐metal prostheses, and the role that this may play in the development of complications such as ‘pseudotumours’ or failure of the implant. In this review, we attempt to set out the current knowledge on this subject. From a review of the literature, it is apparent that the first‐generation metal‐on‐metal replacement hips did cause metal sensitization, and that joint failure was associated with this, although it is still not clear which one led to the other. Highly engineered second‐generation metal‐on‐metal arthroplasties used in joint resurfacings are now increasingly employed. Several studies have recently shown an association between metal sensitization and peri‐implant hypersensitivity reactions and implant loosening and failure, although the overall risk appears to be low. The pragmatic approach adopted by most contact dermatologists for patients known to be allergic to nickel, cobalt or chromium and who require joint replacement is to recommend prostheses made of titanium‐based alloys. Patch testing continues to be a useful tool as laboratory investigations for metal hypersensitivity continue to emerge. The development of guidelines on the management of patients receiving metal‐on‐metal arthroplasties suspected of being metal‐allergic is desirable.