Dermatite da contatto occupazionale da resine metacriliche in odontotecnici

Translated title of the contribution: Occupational contact dermatitis to methacrylic resins in dental technicians

Antonio Cristaudo, Isabella Sperduti, Chiara Tartaglia, Alessandra Iorio, Mirko Frasca, Sergio Javicoli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectivies: the aims of this study were: to evaluate the risk of allergies following exposure to methacrylates among dental technicians; to identify the clinical manifestations of the lesions observed (location, morphology, time of onset); to identify the allergens responsible for allergic contact dermatitis; to investigate potential sources of exposure; to vive up a specific series of acrylic resins for performing patch tests; and to identify possible preventive strategies. An additional objective was to evaluate the risk of allergic reactions to acrylates in individuals with dental implants and with various kinds of stomatitis. Materials and methods: this study involved 183 individuals: 81 dental technicians and 102 subjects with dental prostheses and stomatitis (gengivitis, perioral dermatitis, cheilitis, and burning mouth syndrome) for which it was possible to assume an allergic reaction to methacrylates. All patiens were patch tested with methacrylates series. Results: of the 81 dental technicians, 47 (58%) presented various clinical features of dermatitis. The most frequently affected sites were the hands, forearms, face, and neck. Patch test was positive for at least one specific set of allergens in 22 individuals (17 dental technicians, 21%, and 5 persons with dental prostheses, 4.9%). In 18 of these (81.8%) the positive patch tests were multiple. The most frequently positive allergens were: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), Methyl methacrylate (MMA) e 2-Hydroxypropyl methacrylate (2- HPMA). Discussion: the positive reactions can be considered as cross-reactions due to the recruitment of T cells able to react to the different monomers because of their steric hindrance, molecular weight and polarity of the side chains, rather than co-sensitization. The positive reactions to patch tests in subjects with implants are probably due to residual monomers present because of an incomplete or suboptimal polymerization. Conclusion: our results confirm the high sensitizing potential of methacrylates in the work environment. They also suggest that the adoption of primary preventive measures, such as the use of personal protective equipment (nitrile gloves), may be useful in preventing new cases of contact dermatitis. Gloves help avoid skin irritation which, by promoting the penetration of methacrylic monomers, can be considered the first step for allergic contact dermatitis.

Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)61-67
Number of pages7
JournalAnnali Italiani di Dermatologia Allergologica Clinica e Sperimentale
Volume66
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Dental Technicians
Occupational Dermatitis
Methacrylates
Contact Dermatitis
Patch Tests
Allergens
Dental Prosthesis
Hypersensitivity
Stomatitis
Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Perioral Dermatitis
Burning Mouth Syndrome
Acrylates
Cheilitis
Acrylic Resins
Nitriles
Dental Implants
Cross Reactions
Dermatitis
Forearm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology
  • Immunology and Allergy

Cite this

Dermatite da contatto occupazionale da resine metacriliche in odontotecnici. / Cristaudo, Antonio; Sperduti, Isabella; Tartaglia, Chiara; Iorio, Alessandra; Frasca, Mirko; Javicoli, Sergio.

In: Annali Italiani di Dermatologia Allergologica Clinica e Sperimentale, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2012, p. 61-67.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cristaudo, Antonio ; Sperduti, Isabella ; Tartaglia, Chiara ; Iorio, Alessandra ; Frasca, Mirko ; Javicoli, Sergio. / Dermatite da contatto occupazionale da resine metacriliche in odontotecnici. In: Annali Italiani di Dermatologia Allergologica Clinica e Sperimentale. 2012 ; Vol. 66, No. 1. pp. 61-67.
@article{ba49b3e6d69e42be8789df587316a6bb,
title = "Dermatite da contatto occupazionale da resine metacriliche in odontotecnici",
abstract = "Objectivies: the aims of this study were: to evaluate the risk of allergies following exposure to methacrylates among dental technicians; to identify the clinical manifestations of the lesions observed (location, morphology, time of onset); to identify the allergens responsible for allergic contact dermatitis; to investigate potential sources of exposure; to vive up a specific series of acrylic resins for performing patch tests; and to identify possible preventive strategies. An additional objective was to evaluate the risk of allergic reactions to acrylates in individuals with dental implants and with various kinds of stomatitis. Materials and methods: this study involved 183 individuals: 81 dental technicians and 102 subjects with dental prostheses and stomatitis (gengivitis, perioral dermatitis, cheilitis, and burning mouth syndrome) for which it was possible to assume an allergic reaction to methacrylates. All patiens were patch tested with methacrylates series. Results: of the 81 dental technicians, 47 (58{\%}) presented various clinical features of dermatitis. The most frequently affected sites were the hands, forearms, face, and neck. Patch test was positive for at least one specific set of allergens in 22 individuals (17 dental technicians, 21{\%}, and 5 persons with dental prostheses, 4.9{\%}). In 18 of these (81.8{\%}) the positive patch tests were multiple. The most frequently positive allergens were: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), Methyl methacrylate (MMA) e 2-Hydroxypropyl methacrylate (2- HPMA). Discussion: the positive reactions can be considered as cross-reactions due to the recruitment of T cells able to react to the different monomers because of their steric hindrance, molecular weight and polarity of the side chains, rather than co-sensitization. The positive reactions to patch tests in subjects with implants are probably due to residual monomers present because of an incomplete or suboptimal polymerization. Conclusion: our results confirm the high sensitizing potential of methacrylates in the work environment. They also suggest that the adoption of primary preventive measures, such as the use of personal protective equipment (nitrile gloves), may be useful in preventing new cases of contact dermatitis. Gloves help avoid skin irritation which, by promoting the penetration of methacrylic monomers, can be considered the first step for allergic contact dermatitis.",
keywords = "Dental technicians, Methacrylic resins, Occupational contact dermatitis, Patch test",
author = "Antonio Cristaudo and Isabella Sperduti and Chiara Tartaglia and Alessandra Iorio and Mirko Frasca and Sergio Javicoli",
year = "2012",
language = "Italian",
volume = "66",
pages = "61--67",
journal = "Annali Italiani di Dermatologia Allergologica Clinica e Sperimentale",
issn = "1592-6826",
publisher = "Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore s.r.l.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dermatite da contatto occupazionale da resine metacriliche in odontotecnici

AU - Cristaudo, Antonio

AU - Sperduti, Isabella

AU - Tartaglia, Chiara

AU - Iorio, Alessandra

AU - Frasca, Mirko

AU - Javicoli, Sergio

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Objectivies: the aims of this study were: to evaluate the risk of allergies following exposure to methacrylates among dental technicians; to identify the clinical manifestations of the lesions observed (location, morphology, time of onset); to identify the allergens responsible for allergic contact dermatitis; to investigate potential sources of exposure; to vive up a specific series of acrylic resins for performing patch tests; and to identify possible preventive strategies. An additional objective was to evaluate the risk of allergic reactions to acrylates in individuals with dental implants and with various kinds of stomatitis. Materials and methods: this study involved 183 individuals: 81 dental technicians and 102 subjects with dental prostheses and stomatitis (gengivitis, perioral dermatitis, cheilitis, and burning mouth syndrome) for which it was possible to assume an allergic reaction to methacrylates. All patiens were patch tested with methacrylates series. Results: of the 81 dental technicians, 47 (58%) presented various clinical features of dermatitis. The most frequently affected sites were the hands, forearms, face, and neck. Patch test was positive for at least one specific set of allergens in 22 individuals (17 dental technicians, 21%, and 5 persons with dental prostheses, 4.9%). In 18 of these (81.8%) the positive patch tests were multiple. The most frequently positive allergens were: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), Methyl methacrylate (MMA) e 2-Hydroxypropyl methacrylate (2- HPMA). Discussion: the positive reactions can be considered as cross-reactions due to the recruitment of T cells able to react to the different monomers because of their steric hindrance, molecular weight and polarity of the side chains, rather than co-sensitization. The positive reactions to patch tests in subjects with implants are probably due to residual monomers present because of an incomplete or suboptimal polymerization. Conclusion: our results confirm the high sensitizing potential of methacrylates in the work environment. They also suggest that the adoption of primary preventive measures, such as the use of personal protective equipment (nitrile gloves), may be useful in preventing new cases of contact dermatitis. Gloves help avoid skin irritation which, by promoting the penetration of methacrylic monomers, can be considered the first step for allergic contact dermatitis.

AB - Objectivies: the aims of this study were: to evaluate the risk of allergies following exposure to methacrylates among dental technicians; to identify the clinical manifestations of the lesions observed (location, morphology, time of onset); to identify the allergens responsible for allergic contact dermatitis; to investigate potential sources of exposure; to vive up a specific series of acrylic resins for performing patch tests; and to identify possible preventive strategies. An additional objective was to evaluate the risk of allergic reactions to acrylates in individuals with dental implants and with various kinds of stomatitis. Materials and methods: this study involved 183 individuals: 81 dental technicians and 102 subjects with dental prostheses and stomatitis (gengivitis, perioral dermatitis, cheilitis, and burning mouth syndrome) for which it was possible to assume an allergic reaction to methacrylates. All patiens were patch tested with methacrylates series. Results: of the 81 dental technicians, 47 (58%) presented various clinical features of dermatitis. The most frequently affected sites were the hands, forearms, face, and neck. Patch test was positive for at least one specific set of allergens in 22 individuals (17 dental technicians, 21%, and 5 persons with dental prostheses, 4.9%). In 18 of these (81.8%) the positive patch tests were multiple. The most frequently positive allergens were: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), Methyl methacrylate (MMA) e 2-Hydroxypropyl methacrylate (2- HPMA). Discussion: the positive reactions can be considered as cross-reactions due to the recruitment of T cells able to react to the different monomers because of their steric hindrance, molecular weight and polarity of the side chains, rather than co-sensitization. The positive reactions to patch tests in subjects with implants are probably due to residual monomers present because of an incomplete or suboptimal polymerization. Conclusion: our results confirm the high sensitizing potential of methacrylates in the work environment. They also suggest that the adoption of primary preventive measures, such as the use of personal protective equipment (nitrile gloves), may be useful in preventing new cases of contact dermatitis. Gloves help avoid skin irritation which, by promoting the penetration of methacrylic monomers, can be considered the first step for allergic contact dermatitis.

KW - Dental technicians

KW - Methacrylic resins

KW - Occupational contact dermatitis

KW - Patch test

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866655753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866655753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Articolo

AN - SCOPUS:84866655753

VL - 66

SP - 61

EP - 67

JO - Annali Italiani di Dermatologia Allergologica Clinica e Sperimentale

JF - Annali Italiani di Dermatologia Allergologica Clinica e Sperimentale

SN - 1592-6826

IS - 1

ER -