Allergy to nickel or cobalt: tolerance to nickel and cobalt samples in man and in the guinea pig allergic or sensitized to these metals

Double-Crown Prosthesis Retention Using Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK): An In Vitro Study

PURPOSE

To assess the retentive force of telescopic crowns using polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) high-performance polymer in relation to conventional materials over a long period of time in an in vitro setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six sets of primary and secondary crowns were fabricated as per the double crown-retained prostheses approach. Six samples were included in each of the five test groups (1: zirconia/PEKK [Zr/PEKK]; 2: titanium/PEKK [Ti/PEKK]; 3: cobalt-chrome/PEKK [CoCr/PEKK]; 4: PEKK/PEKK; and 5: gold/PEKK [Au/PEKK]) and the single control group (gold/galvano-gold [Au/GA]). The insertion-removal test was performed for 20,000 cycles, and the surface condition was observed. Retentive forces were analyzed using two-way ANOVA (α<0.05).

RESULTS

The retention forces in groups Zr/PEKK and Ti/PEKK significantly decreased over time (group 1: p = 0.035 and group 2: p = 0.001), whereas retentive force increased significantly in groups PEKK/PEKK, Au/PEKK, and control (group 4: p = 0.001, group 5: p = 0.008, and control: p = 0.042). Similar wear was observed on the primary crown in groups PEKK/PEKK, gold/PEKK, and control.

CONCLUSIONS

Groups PEKK/PEKK and Au/PEKK showed a transition of retentive force similar to the control group. Groups PEKK/PEKK and Au/PEKK had similar wear on the surface compared to control. Therefore, PEKK has a promising clinical potential.

Materials and allergens within spectacle frames: a review

The materials that have been reported as causing allergic contact dermatitis within spectacle frames are identified, and their most likely location on the frame is highlighted. The lack of any real control over spectacle frame quality and content is indicated to be a problem, as is the difficulty in determining the true source of many frames. Much of the information must be obtained from anonymous sources in the industry, historical 'common knowledge' of indeterminate source or reports of dermatological problems.

The health hazards posed by chromium-contaminated soils in residential and industrial areas: conclusions of an expert panel

Between 1905 and 1971, over 2 million tons of residue from chromite ore processing was generated in Hudson County, New Jersey, of which substantial amounts were used as fill and tank diking. A panel of medical, toxicology, and risk assessment experts was convened in early 1990 to evaluate the potential health hazards posed by the resulting chromium contaminated soil. The Panel concluded that soils containing concentrations of 75 ppm hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] and 1000 ppm total chromium compounds (about 95% was trivalent chromium [Cr(III)]) did not pose a significant health hazard to nearby residents and workers. They also determined that exposure to chromium from Hudson County sites posed a negligible cancer hazard to residents. Using risk assessment methods, the Panel estimated that the plausible incremental cancer risk to individuals at residential sites would be substantially less than 1 in 1,000,000. The average measured levels of airborne Cr(VI) at typical industrial sites were more than 1000-fold lower than the current OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). The maximum plausible increased cancer risk for an average worker at a dusty industrial site was estimated to be less than 1 in 100,000. The Panel also concluded that chromium-containing crystals, which have occasionally been found in Hudson County buildings, do not pose a significant hazard. However, they suggested that were the concentration to exceed 5000 ppm Cr(VI) in the crystals, site-specific health risk assessments would be conducted and remediation considered. The Panel evaluated the dermal hazard posed by chromium-contaminated soil and acknowledged that there is a small group of persons (approximately 0.1% of the United States population) who currently have a dermal sensitization to Cr(VI) primarily through occupational exposure. Based on published studies of human volunteers, the Panel concluded that a small percentage (less than 5%) of persons already sensitized may respond to Cr(VI) in solution at concentrations above 35 ppm. They decided that a much higher concentration in soil, perhaps 350 ppm Cr(VI), would be necessary to elicit dermatitis because only a fraction of the chromium in soil is soluble. The Panel concluded that it was highly unlikely (if not impossible) for a person to become dermally sensitized to Cr(VI) or Cr(III) at the soil concentrations found in most areas in Hudson County.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)