In vivo testing of the protection of gloves against acrylates in dentin-bonding systems on patients with known contact allergy to acrylates

被引:26
作者
Andersson, T
Bruze, M
Björkner, B
机构
[1] Linkoping Univ Hosp, Dept Biomed & Surg, Div Dermatol, S-58185 Linkoping, Sweden
[2] Univ Hosp, Dept Occupat & Environm Dermatol, Malmo, Sweden
关键词
in vivo testing; protective gloves; latex; vinyl; nitrile; ethylene-vinyl-alcohol-polyethene; occupational; contact allergy; dental; acrylates; 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate; triethylene glycol dimethacrylate; adhesive; bonding system; prevention;
D O I
10.1111/j.1600-0536.1999.tb06156.x
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Occupational contact allergies to dental acrylates are increasing. Commonly used gloves protect poorly against acrylates. The protective efficacy in vivo of other, newer glove materials is not fully known. In this study, an open chamber system was used for testing the protection in vivo of 6 different gloves (1 vinyl glove, 2 latex gloves, 2 nitrile gloves and the 4H(R) glove) against a commonly used dental adhesive, Scotchbond(TM) 1, containing 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TREGDMA). 8 patients with known contact allergy to 2-HEMA participated. Provocation with 50 mu l of the adhesive for 7.5, 15 and 30 min was performed for each glove. The test demonstrated clear differences in the protective efficacy between the gloves. The 4H(R) glove gave by far the best protection, followed by one of the nitrile gloves. One of the latex gloves and the vinyl glove gave a very poor protection against the adhesive. A dose-response relationship was observed between different application times of the acrylate product. The test model promises to be a useful clinical complement to in vitro methods in individual preventive measures against contact sensitization to acrylates.
引用
收藏
页码:254 / 259
页数:6
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   In vivo testing of the protective efficacy of gloves against allergen-containing products using an open chamber system [J].
Andersson, T ;
Bruze, M .
CONTACT DERMATITIS, 1999, 41 (05) :260-263
[2]  
HUGGINS R, 1987, AM IND HYG ASSOC J, V48, P656, DOI 10.1202/0002-8894(1987)048<0656:TOGFPT>2.0.CO
[3]  
2
[4]   OCCUPATIONAL SKIN ALLERGY IN THE DENTAL PROFESSION [J].
KANERVA, L ;
ESTLANDER, T ;
JOLANKI, R .
DERMATOLOGIC CLINICS, 1994, 12 (03) :517-532
[5]  
Kanerva L., 1994, J EUR ACAD DERMATOL, V3, P157, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-3083.1994.tb00091.x
[6]  
KANERVA L, 1996, DERMATOSEN, V44, P57
[7]  
Kirkwood B., 1988, ESSENTIALS MED STAT
[8]  
MUNKSGAARD EC, 1992, SCAND J DENT RES, V100, P189
[9]   PERMEABILITY OF LATEX GLOVES AFTER CONTACT WITH DENTAL MATERIALS [J].
RICHARDS, JM ;
SYDISKIS, RJ ;
DAVIDSON, WM ;
JOSELL, SD ;
LAVINE, DS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1993, 104 (03) :224-229
[10]   INVIVO AND INVITRO TESTING OF GLOVES FOR PROTECTION AGAINST UV-CURABLE ACRYLATE RESIN SYSTEMS [J].
RIETSCHEL, RL ;
HUGGINS, R ;
LEVY, N ;
PRUITT, PM .
CONTACT DERMATITIS, 1984, 11 (05) :279-282