Cyanoacrylate Nail Glue and the Pajama Catalyst

Adverse Effects of Do-It-Yourself Nail Cosmetics: A Literature Review

Background

As self-applied manicures have gained popularity, it is important for physicians to remain informed about potential associated side effects. Traditional polish remains most popular among nail enthusiasts, but the pursuit of durability and convenience accelerated development of other nail cosmetic products, including gel polish, acrylic nails, and press-on nails. Despite documented adverse effects among beauty professionals and salon customers, individuals practicing at-home nail care routines may face similar, if not more, frequent complications due to misinformation, inadequate training, and social media trends.

Summary

This review provides an overview of adverse effects associated with different at-home nail cosmetics. Allergic contact dermatitis is the most prevalent adverse event, primarily attributed to (meth)acrylates found in nail glue, gel polish, and acrylic nails. Other adverse effects include infections, chemical burns, and complications from ultraviolet nail lamps.

Key Message

The review highlights the importance of transparent product labeling and appropriate warning labels from manufacturers, as well as physician education and awareness for minimizing risks related to at-home nail cosmetic applications.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyl cyanoacrylate contained in cosmetic glues among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications: a systematic review

Current cosmetic regulations primarily focus on protecting consumers, not the professional user who is subjected to a partly different, and certainly more intense exposure to hazardous substances. Against this background, the present systematic review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding skin toxicity of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA; CAS no. 212-782-2) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA; CAS no. 7085-85-0) contained in cosmetic glues used among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications. This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 recommendations for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. In total, 6 publications from 6 countries were eligible for this systematic review. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers and beauticians have a 9-fold increased risk of developing contact allergy to HEMA compared to controls who are not hairdressers and beauticians. Results for ECA are lacking. The present systematic review clearly shows that - regarding contact allergy to acrylates - it is not appropriate to apply risk assessment for consumers to hairdressers and beauticians who occupationally handle cosmetic glues. The regulations in existence do not adequately address occupational risks for hairdressers and beauticians connected with the use of acrylate-containing cosmetic substances and need reconsideration. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.