Health risk assessment of exposure to formaldehyde in dental materials

Lyapina, Maya; Krasteva, Assya; Dencheva, Maria; Tzekova, Mariana; Deliverska, Mariela; Kisselova, Angelina

doi:10.2478/s11536-013-0264-4

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among these 13 (43.3%) were positive to formaldehyde (tested 0.1% in water) compared to 9 (18.8%) of 48 nonexposed. Formaldehyde was considered a stronger skin sensitizer than glutaraldehyde (tested 0.2% in pet), to which 8 (26.7%) dental professionals and 11 (22.9%) from the control group reacted [1]. A study performed in India in 2010 using a pretested self-administered questionnaire showed that 16% of 163 dentists (73% male and 27% female) reported allergy to latex gloves [23].…”

Section: Dental Personnelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dentists, dental nurses and assistants, and dental laboratory technicians suffer predominantly from irritant contact dermatitis. While in the last 30-35 years, allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates, rubber products, disinfectants, detergents, and formaldehyde [1] was seen to be more frequent, but to a lesser degree, the equivalent of this in the mouth, allergic contact stomatitis, was a rare phenomenon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dental Materials and Implants

Isaksson¹,

Rustemeyer²,

Antelmi³

2019

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental professionals and dental patients are exposed to the same sensitizers, but the outcome is very different. Dental professionals suffer predominantly from irritant contact dermatitis and to a lesser degree from allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates and rubber products. Dental patients rarely have allergic contact stomatitis. In this chapter, the reader will learn about the multiple factors that lead to irritant contact dermatitis and also about the major sensitizers, e.g., methacrylates in dentin bonding agents, dental composite resins (DCR), and prostheses, in addition to rubber chemicals, metals, fragrances, and disinfectants. The various sensitizers that may give lichenoid reactions in patients are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Dental Personnelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Materials and Implants

Isaksson¹,

Rustemeyer²,

Antelmi³

2019

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the last decade, advances in dental material science have promoted the expectations of dentists and patients about the safety and efficiency of dental products [1]. Nowadays, there are several kinds of acrylic resins in the dental market, and each of them shows some advantages and disadvantages [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vitro Comparison of the Effect of Three Types of Heat-Curing Acrylic Resins on the Amount of Formaldehyde and Monomer Release as well as Biocompatibility

lari

Jahed

Abbasi

et al. 2022

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Purpose. The biocompatibility and cytotoxicity of formaldehyde and monomer are essential in resin-based denture’s byproducts. This present study was performed to compare the release of formaldehyde and monomer and biocompatibility of three brands of heat-curing acrylic resins, including Ivoclar, Bayer, and Acropars, with different mixing properties and the same processing methods. Materials and Methods. In this experimental in vitro study, 18 samples were fabricated from Ivoclar, Bayer, and Acropars heat-curing acrylic resins (each group consisting of 6 samples). The released formaldehyde and monomer level were measured and registered for 1, 7, and 30 days. Also, methyl methacrylate release from samples was used to test cell cytotoxicity using L-929 murine fibroblast. The data were analyzed with repeated measures, one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Results. For formaldehyde release of 1 day, Ivoclar acrylic resin showed the lowest level, followed by Bayer and Acropars acrylic resins ( P < 0.05 ). On 7 and 30 days, Bayer acrylic resin released the lowest formaldehyde, followed by Ivoclar and Acropars acrylic resins ( P < 0.05 ). Acropars showed the weakest and most significant results regarding biocompatibility and monomer release in all three points of time, respectively ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. Acropars acrylic resin showed the most significant formaldehyde and monomer release and least biocompatibility compared to Bayer and Ivoclar for 1, 7, and 30 days; however, after 30 days, all three resins displayed the same amount of formaldehyde release.

show abstract

“…[23] In our previous studies, irritant and skin-sensitizing effects of formaldehyde among dental students exposed during their practical education were well documented. [2425] No studies were found in the available literature concerning the incidence of contact sensitization to formaldehyde among veterinary medicine students and lecturers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact sensitization to formaldehyde in veterinary medicine – An unexplored field in occupational health

Lyapina¹,

Manov

Cekova

2019

Indian J Occup Environ Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Veterinary staff and students could be exposed to formaldehyde – a ubiquitous agent, common cause of contact allergy. Aim: To evaluate the incidence of contact sensitization to formaldehyde in exposures in veterinary medicine. Settings and Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted during July–December 2017. Materials and Methods: A total of 206 individuals were included, patch tested with formaldehyde 1.0%/aq – 36 veterinary medicine students, 20 veterinarians, 47 students and 28 trainees of dental medicine, 41 dental professionals, and 35 non-occupationally exposed individuals. Results: The incidence of contact sensitization to formaldehyde among the whole studied population was 48.1%, highest being among the students of veterinary medicine (94.4%) and the veterinarians (85%). With very high significance, the sensitization incidence was higher in the groups of students of veterinary medicine and veterinarians, if compared to the control group ( P < 0.001); ( P = 0.004), dental professionals ( P < 0.001); ( P = 0.001), trainees of dental medicine ( P < 0.001); ( P = 0.005), and students of dental medicine three-fourth year of education ( P < 0.001); ( P = 0.001). Significantly, higher was the incidence of contact allergy in the control group if compared to those of dental professionals ( P = 0.033) and dental students three-fourth year of education ( P = 0.028). Conclusions: The exposure to formaldehyde during the education in veterinary medicine and practice could be an important risk factor for the onset of contact sensitization. Stricter preventive measures are needed to reduce veterinary student's and lecturer's exposures. Equipment of dissection tables with local exhaust ventilation system could reduce the concentration of formaldehyde in the gross anatomy laboratory.

show abstract

Health risk assessment of exposure to formaldehyde in dental materials

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 7 publications

References 33 publications

Dental Materials and Implants

Dental Materials and Implants

In Vitro Comparison of the Effect of Three Types of Heat-Curing Acrylic Resins on the Amount of Formaldehyde and Monomer Release as well as Biocompatibility

Contact sensitization to formaldehyde in veterinary medicine – An unexplored field in occupational health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About