Contact allergy to (meth)acrylates in the dental series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens

Goon, Anthony Teik‐Jin; Isaksson, Marléne; Zimerson, Erik; Goh, Chee Leok; Bruze, M.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00922.x

Cited by 110 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Occupationally unexposed patients among dental professionals is high [21][22][23][24][25][26], as well as it is high in the patients undergoing dental treatment and exposed to resin-based materials [27]. Acrylic monomers cross-react, therefore, sensitized individuals are often multiallergic and, accordingly, should not be exposed to any of the compounds [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers in students of dental medicine and dental patients

Lyapina¹,

Dencheva²,

Krasteva³

et al. 2014

IJOMEH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: A multitude of acrylic monomers is used in dentistry. Formaldehyde is a ubiquitous chemical agent, which is an ingredient of some dental materials and may be released from methacrylate-based composites. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the incidence and the risk of cross-sensitization to some methacrylic monomers (methylmethacrylate -MMA, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate -TEGDMA, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate -EGDMA, 2,2-bis-[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacrylo-xypropoxy)phenyl]-propane -Bis-GMA, 2-hydroxy-ethyl methacrylate 2-HEMA, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate) and formaldehyde in students of dentistry, dental professionals and dental patients. Material and Methods: A total of 139 participants were included in the study, i.e., occupationally exposed dental professionals, students of the 3rd, 4th and 6th year of dental medicine, and occupationally unexposed dental patients. They were patch-tested with methacrylic monomers and formaldehyde. The results were subjected to statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Results: From the allergic to formaldehyde students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine, 46.2% were also sensitized to MMA. Among the group of patients, the incidence of cross-sensitization to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers was as follows: to TEGDMA -20.6%, to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate -20.7%, to 2-HEMA -20.7% and to tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate -24.1%. Contact allergy to MMA was diagnosed among 22.7%, and to TEGDMA -among 27.1% of the students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine. In the group of occupationally unexposed dental patients the prevalence of contact allergy to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate was 20.7%, to Bis-GMA -27.6%, to 2-HEMA -44.9% and to tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate -38.0%. Conclusions:The students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine could be outlined as a group at risk of sensitization to MMA and TEGDMA and of cross-sensitization to MMA and formaldehyde. Probably, due to the ubiquitous occurrence of formaldehyde and the wide use of composite resins and bonding agents containing TEGDMA, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, 2-HEMA and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate in dentistry, the group of dental patients could be at risk of cross-sensitization to formaldehyde and some methacrylic monomers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers in students of dental medicine and dental patients

Lyapina¹,

Dencheva²,

Krasteva³

et al. 2014

IJOMEH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These modern so-called esthetic materials have only lately come to the forefront; although in some countries they have almost completely replaced amalgam and are currently the primary dental restoration material 27,28 . In a set of 1322 dental patients in Sweden, epicutaneous tests were positive for (meth)acrylates in 2.3 % and in a set of dental personnel they were positive in 5.8 %, which shows the signifi cant sensitizing potential of these substances 28 . Oral lichenoid lesions and allergy to dental materials function and create conditions for the development of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction 15 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Lichenoid Lesions and Allergy to Dental Materials

Ditrichová¹,

Kaprálová²,

Tichý³

et al. 2007

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Dental materials, oral hygiene products and food additives may cause contact allergic reactions in the mouth with varied clinical presentation. Oral lichenoid lesions (lichen planus-like lesions) can be induced by hypersensitivity to dental restorative metals, acrylates, fl avorings and other substances.Aim: The aim of this study was to demonstrate contact allergy to dental materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions using patch tests.Patients and methods: Routine patch tests with two sets of allergens -"European Standard" and "Dental Screening" (Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Sweden) supplemented with pulverized amalgam, iridium, indium, menthol, sorbic acid and platinum were done on a set of 25 patients with lichenoid lesions located on the buccal mucosa, tongue and lips. Application and interpretation of the tests were conducted according to ICDRG (International Contact Dermatitis Research Group).Results: 15 (60 %) patients showed sensitization to 1 or more allergens, with a total of 31 positive reactions. The greatest frequency of positive reactions was to dental metals, with a total of 27 positive reactions. The order of tested metals according to frequency of positive reactions was mercury (6/25/24 %), amalgam (6/25/24 %), nickel (4/25/16 %), palladium (4/25/16 %), cobalt (3/25/12 %), gold (2/25/8 %), chrome (1/25/4 %), indium (1/25/4 %). The clinical relevance of the results with regard to the material's presence in the mouth was demonstrated in 11 (44 %) patients. In 9 patients, replacement of the positively tested materials led to healing or to signifi cant regression of mucosal changes. Conclusions:The results of the patch tests showed the possible contribution of contact sensitization in the pathogenesis of lichenoid manifestations in the oral cavity. Due to the premalignant character of these lesions, replacement of positively tested materials and follow up of these patients is advised.

show abstract

“…Uncured products, in turn, contain sensitizing monomers. Contact allergy to acrylic resin monomers is most often induced by dental products, artificial nails, and glues (Guerra et al 1993;Tucker and Beck 1999;Geukens and Goossens 2001;Sood and Taylor 2003;Goon et al 2006;Teik-Jin Goon et al 2007;Aalto-Korte et al 2008). These products usually contain methacrylates, to which patients have allergic reactions more commonly than to acrylates.…”

Section: Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Acrylic Resinsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Dentists and dental nurses are most commonly exposed to 2-HEMA, TREGDMA, and bis-GMA, they most often react to 2-HEMA, sometimes also to TREGDMA, but rarely to bis-GMA (Goon et al 2006;Aalto-Korte et al 2007b). Among dental technicians, MMA and EGDMA are the most significant allergens (Aalto-Korte et al 2007b).…”

Section: Dental Acrylatesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Acrylic Resins

Aalto‐Korte¹

2012

Kanerva's Occupational Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact allergy to (meth)acrylates in the dental series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens

Cited by 110 publications

References 18 publications

Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers in students of dental medicine and dental patients

Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers in students of dental medicine and dental patients

Oral Lichenoid Lesions and Allergy to Dental Materials

Acrylic Resins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About