A method for measuring the potential dermal exposure to methyl methacrylate during two different dental technical work tasks

Abstract

Dental technicians are exposed on a daily basis to undiluted methyl methacrylate (MMA) when performing various routine tasks. Although the clinical effects of this chemical have been known for decades, no previous studies have been performed to estimate the potential dermal exposure to it. In this study we describe a patch-sampling technique to intercept the MMA that would otherwise have contaminated the skin on different parts of the hand and lower arm. Two different work tasks, making an orthodontic splint and denture preparation, were both performed under simulated workplace conditions twice by two recent graduated dental technicians. Air measurements were collected simultaneously. The results indicate that the exposure patterns associated with producing an orthodontic splint and denture preparation differed. We found work task-dependent differences in the amounts of MMA collected at the different parts of each hand, and differences between the right and left hands. There was also an interaction between hand and work task, especially for the right hand. The air measurements were positively correlated with the dermal exposure. This study highlights the importance of using a measurement strategy that takes the variability within the hand/arm body parts into account when measuring potential exposure during these kinds of work tasks. In order to establish future dermal exposure limits, more workplace and experimental studies are required.

Potential dermal exposure to methyl methacrylate among dental technicians; variability and determinants in a field study

“…Indeed, Aalto-Korte et al (2007) 11 have shown MMA and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate to be the most common allergens affecting dental technicians. However, despite knowledge of the dermal effects of MMA we are only aware of one study 12 in which potential dermal exposure to MMA was assessed. Furthermore, in the cited study dental work was performed under simulated workplace conditions.…”

“…However, the between-body location variance component is dermal-specific, since spillage and contact with contaminanted surfaces can be significant for exposure of a defined body part. In the study earlier referred to by Liljelind et al, 12 they selected measurement spots on the hands and lower arm, since they assumed that these skin areas would be the most contaminanted during the dental work tasks. The results showed that the hands were the main exposed skin area.…”

“…These locations were chosen since the forefinger and palm of the hand are known to be exposed areas during dental work. 12 The selection was done without considering any biological differences of skin among body parts. However, the ring finger was regarded as a ''reference finger'' that is likely to be less exposed than the forefinger.…”

Identification of covalent binding sites of ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate, methyl methacrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in human hemoglobin using LC/MS/MS techniques

“…However, there is very little information about the exposure to acrylates since only methods for measuring a few acrylates are available. Some measurements of acrylates in air and on dermal patches have been described [8][9][10].…”

Occupational skin exposure and hand eczema among dental technicians—need for improved prevention

“…The handling of uncured MA involves the risk of skin exposure (10) and can cause contact sensitization, which is well documented in dentistry (11)(12)(13). Mürer et al (9) reported that the point prevalence of skin problems on the hands among dental technicians who handled MA was 38% higher than among those who had never worked with MA.…”