Testing of gloves for permeability to UV-curable acrylate coatings

Contact Dermatitis to Diabetes Medical Devices

Skin adverse reactions to diabetes medical devices have been reported frequently over recent years. Adhesives attaching glucose sensors and continuous insulin infusion sets to the skin are proven to cause both allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis in patients with diabetes mellitus. Several allergens contained in adhesives and/or parts of medical devices are documented to cause allergic contact dermatitis, with acrylate chemicals being the most common culprit-especially isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), but also 2,2'-methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) monoacrylate or cyanoacrylates. Epoxy resin, colophonium and nickel were also identified as causative allergens. However, repetitive occlusion, maceration of the skin and resulting disruption of the skin barrier seem to have an impact on the development of skin lesions as well. The purpose of this study is to highlight the burden of contact dermatitis triggered by diabetes medical devices and to show possible mechanisms responsible for the development of contact dermatitis in a group of diabetic patients.

Methacrylate perspective in current dental practice

OBJECTIVE

To provide a current perspective concerning dental personnel sensitivity to methacrylate materials.

OVERVIEW

Methacrylate related sensitivity and allergies are currently beyond traditional thoughts concerning denture base resins and methyl methacrylate provisional materials. Methacrylates are now ubiquitous in current dental practice and dental personnel should be aware that dental adhesives contain potent sensitizers that may also cross-sensitize individuals to other methacrylates not experienced. The growing sensitivity to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been described to be epidemic in nature due to the artificial nail industry with dental patients and dental personnel may be more susceptible to dental methacrylate sensitization. While contact dermatitis remains the most prevalent methacrylate-related clinical presentation, respiratory complications and asthma are increasing associated with methacrylate exposure. While additional personal protective equipment (PPE) is thought to be first protective choice, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) considers PPE overall largely ineffective and should be considered only as a last resort.

CONCLUSION

Dental personnel need to be more aware of methacrylate sources and use workplace control measures to limit methacrylate exposures to both dental personnel and patients.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Sensitivity to methacrylate materials is a growing dental workplace major concern and dental personnel should be aware of both the methacrylate content of current materials and the products that contain ingredients with the most sensitization potential.

An epidemic of occupational contact dermatitis from an acrylic glue

Dermatological examinations were performed in 81 workers involved in the manufacture of electric coils for television displays, who had worked for 4 years in contact with a glue containing isobornyl acrylate, acrylic acid, N,N dimethyleneacrylamide, phosphine oxide, bis(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl) (2,4,4-trimethylpentyl)- and beta-carboxyethyl acrylate. The glue was cured by 350-500-nm ultraviolet and visible radiations. Acrylate-specific dermal lesions were detected in 21 (25.9%) people. Occupational irritant contact dermatitis was diagnosed in 12 (15%) of the workers and occupational allergic contact dermatitis in 9 (11.2%). 12 people reacted to acrylates. Cross-reactions with methacrylates were not observed. The highest number of positive tests was obtained with triethyleneglycol diacrylate (10 people) and diethyleneglycol diacrylate (9), followed by 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (5), 1,4-butanediol diacrylate (4), beta-carboxyethyl acrylate (3), tripropyleneglycol diacrylate (2) and pentaerythritol triacrylate (2). No cases of allergy to isobornyl acrylate, N,N-methylenebisacrylamide or phosphine oxide were noted.

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

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 glove) against a commonly used dental adhesive, Scotchbond 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 microl 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 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.