Contact Dermatitis: Allergic

Beck, M. H.; Wilkinson, S. M.

doi:10.1002/9780470750520.ch20

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 1,371 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other common presenting features were hyperpigmentation (Figure ), erythema, and papules or plaques. Cosmetic dermatitis commonly presents with erythematous scaly patches or a more diffuse erythema . Pigmented cosmetic dermatitis is seen mainly in women of Indian subcontinent (Figure ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Garg

Agarwal

Chander

et al. 2017

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Growing use of cosmetics has led to an increase in the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to cosmetics. Patch testing helps to confirm allergy to cosmetics and pinpoint the exact offending allergens. Aims and Objectives The study aimed to find the frequency of positive patch test reactions in cases with suspected ACD to cosmetics, and the common allergens responsible for it. Methods This is a retrospective record‐based study of 58 patients, with suspected ACD to cosmetics, who had undergone patch testing with Indian standard series and Indian cosmetic and fragrance series from January 2013 to December 2015. Results The majority of patients (60.34%) belonged to the age group of 20‐40 years. The most common site of involvement was face (94.8%) followed by neck (22.4%). The most commonly implicated cosmetics in history were soaps (53.4%), and face creams (24.1%). The most common allergens detected on patch testing were cetrimide (20.7%) and thimerosal (15.5%) followed by paraphenylenediamine (6.9%), and fragrance mix (5.2). Positive allergic reactions were obtained in 2.12% of the patches. Conclusion Most common cosmetic products implicated for causing ACD were face creams, soaps, and hair dyes. The principal culprit allergens were cetrimide and thimerosal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Garg

Agarwal

Chander

et al. 2017

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3). This can be explained by the fact that offending chemicals directly exert their melanocytotoxic effect independently of their sensitizing potential by cell‐mediated immunity, 21 which is usually less pronounced at the extreme of ages. Adults had a much higher incidence of chemical leucoderma (85·9%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical leucoderma: a clinico-aetiological study of 864 cases in the perspective of a developing country

Ghosh¹,

Mukhopadhyay²

2009

British Journal of Dermatology

106

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These changes were not seen in control groups and thus were probably produced by the subchronic application of TiO 2 nanoparticles, suggesting the development of contact dermatitis. Generally, titanium never induces dermal sensitization or allergic reaction and possesses good corrosion resistance as a result of the passive oxide film that spontaneously forms on the surface of the metal . Therefore, these histopathological changes were thought to have been caused by direct action or irritation of TiO 2 nanoparticles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subchronic exposure of titanium dioxide nanoparticles to hairless rat skin

Adachi

Yamada

Yoshida

et al. 2013

Experimental Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluation of the biological effects of industrial nanoparticles on the skin is necessary for their risk assessment. To clarify the influence of TiO2 nanoparticles on the skin, we carried out a subchronic exposure study of TiO2 nanoparticles to hairless rat skin. W/O emulsion containing 10 wt% TiO2 nanoparticles and control emulsion was applied to the dorsal skin of Hairless Wistar Yagi rats once a day for a maximum period of 56 consecutive days. After 2, 4 and 8 weeks, skin samples were taken from the exposed skin area. Histopathologically, the particles were only located in the stratum corneum layer of epidermis and follicular epithelium. Focal parakeratosis and spongiosis were observed in the epidermis. Transmission electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX) analysis failed to show TiO2 nanoparticles in the viable skin areas. There was no evidence of TiO2 penetration in the viable skin areas. In addition, titanium contents in several organs were determined using inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Increased titanium concentration was detected in lung samples of the TiO2 emulsion-treated groups after 8 weeks. It was most likely that the presence of TiO2 in the lungs was not caused by direct absorption of nanoparticles from the skin but was due to rats inhaling the nanoparticle. We did not find any obvious evidences of nano-TiO2 particle skin penetration using several morphological methods after the subchronic exposure. We believe that the influence of subchronic exposure of TiO2 is not significant based on our study.

show abstract

Contact Dermatitis: Allergic

Cited by 13 publications

References 1,371 publications

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Chemical leucoderma: a clinico-aetiological study of 864 cases in the perspective of a developing country

Subchronic exposure of titanium dioxide nanoparticles to hairless rat skin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About