Manifestations pulmonaires des prothésistes dentaires

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitisation: a comprehensive review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is classified under GHS as a weak skin sensitiser and a skin and respiratory irritant. It has recently been proposed that MMA be classified as a respiratory sensitiser (a designation that in a regulatory context embraces both true respiratory allergens, as well as chemicals that cause asthma through non-immunological mechanisms). This proposal was based primarily upon the interpretation of human data. This review, and a detailed weight of evidence analysis, has led to another interpretation of these data. The conclusion drawn is that persuasive evidence consistent with the designation of MMA as a respiratory sensitiser is lacking. It is suggested that one reason for different interpretations of these data is that occupational asthma poses several challenges with respect to establishing causation. Among these is that it is difficult to distinguish between allergic asthma, non-allergic asthma, and work-related exacerbation of pre-existing asthma. Moreover, there is a lack of methods for the identification of true chemical respiratory allergens. The characterisation and causation of occupational asthma is consequently largely dependent upon interpretation of human data of various types. Recommendations are made that are designed to improve the utility and interpretation of human data for establishing causation in occupational asthma.

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitization: a critical review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer that has been associated with occupational asthma in a small number of case reports. Those reports have raised concern that it might be a respiratory sensitizer. To better understand that possibility, we reviewed the in silico, in chemico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicology literature, and also epidemiologic and occupational medicine reports related to the respiratory effects of MMA. Numerous in silico and in chemico studies indicate that MMA is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitizer. The few in vitro studies suggest that MMA has generally weak effects. In vivo studies have documented contact skin sensitization, nonspecific cytotoxicity, and weakly positive responses on local lymph node assay; guinea pig and mouse inhalation sensitization tests have not been performed. Cohort and cross-sectional worker studies reported irritation of eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract associated with short-term peaks exposures, but little evidence for respiratory sensitization or asthma. Nineteen case reports described asthma, laryngitis, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis in MMA-exposed workers; however, exposures were either not well described or involved mixtures containing more reactive respiratory sensitizers and irritants. The weight of evidence, both experimental and observational, argues that MMA is not a respiratory sensitizer.