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.
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||Annali Italiani di Dermatologia Allergologica Clinica e Sperimentale|
|Publication status||Published - 2012|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Immunology and Allergy