Dental Materials

Estlander, Tuula; Alanko, Kristiina; Jolanki, Riitta

doi:10.1007/3-540-31301-x_36

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 200 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With regards to the acrylates, the more persuasive cases being for the sensitizing properties of BA and EA. There is little doubt that in humans, these chemicals are weak contact allergens (1, 2,22–24).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of skin sensitization potency of acrylates (methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, and ethylhexyl acrylate) using the local lymph node assay

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are currently available no systematic experimental data on the skin sensitizing properties of acrylates that are of relevance in occupational settings. Limited information from previous guinea-pig tests or from the local lymph node assay (LLNA) is available; however, these data are incomplete and somewhat contradictory. For those reasons, we have examined in the LLNA 4 acrylates: butyl acrylate (BA), ethyl acrylate (EA), methyl acrylate (MA), and ethylhexyl acrylate (EHA). The LLNA data indicated that all 4 compounds have some potential to cause skin sensitization. In addition, the relative potencies of these acrylates were measured by derivation from LLNA dose-response analyses of EC3 values (the effective concentration of chemical required to induce a threefold increase in proliferation of draining lymph node cells compared with control values). On the basis of 1 scheme for the categorization of skin sensitization potency, BA, EA, and MA were each classified as weak sensitizers. Using the same scheme, EHA was considered a moderate sensitizer. However, it must be emphasized that the EC3 value for this chemical of 9.7% is on the borderline between moderate (<10%) and weak (>10%) categories. Thus, the judicious view is that all 4 chemicals possess relatively weak skin sensitizing potential.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of skin sensitization potency of acrylates (methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, and ethylhexyl acrylate) using the local lymph node assay

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bis-GMA was introduced as a component of dental composite resin in the 1960s. Since then, it has been widely used in products used by dentists (18) and appears also in denture materials (4,19), artificial nail preparations (3,20,21) and in printing work (22). In the Finnish Product Register of Chemicals, it was also found in some adhesives, in a wind screen repair resin and a filler of motor vehicles.…”

Section: Bis-gmamentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact allergy to epoxy (meth)acrylates

Aalto‐Korte¹,

Jungewelter

Henriks‐Eckerman

et al. 2009

Contact Dermatitis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a consequence of this, dental personnel are exposed to (meth)acrylates, for example from acrylic resin‐based composites and bonding agents (1, 2). Dental assistants’ exposure to airborne methacrylates takes place mainly when dosage and mixing of the material is carried out and during the placement and removal of restorations (3–5). Methacrylates are also used in bonding of porcelain veneers, crowns and bridges, as well as in cementing orthodontic applications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methacrylates are also used in bonding of porcelain veneers, crowns and bridges, as well as in cementing orthodontic applications. Dental assistants can be exposed in their work to many different (meth)acrylates, including 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2‐HEMA), triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), urethane dimethacrylate (UEDMA), and 2,2‐bis‐[4‐(2‐hydroxy‐3‐methacryloxypropoxy) phenyl]‐propane (bis‐GMA) (3, 5). The most important airborne exposures are 2‐HEMA and TEGDMA (3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%