Allergic contact dermatitis from resin-modified glass ionomers

Impact of bisphenol A and analogues eluted from resin-based dental materials on cellular and molecular processes: An insight on underlying toxicity mechanisms

Dental resin systems, used for artificial replacement of teeth and their surrounding structures, have gained popularity due to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommendation to reduce dental amalgam use in high-risk populations and medical circumstances. Bisphenol A (BPA), an endocrine-disrupting chemical, is an essential monomer within dental resin in the form of various analogues and derivatives. Leaching of monomers from resins results in toxicity, affecting hormone metabolism and causing long-term health risks. Understanding cellular-level toxicity profiles of bisphenol derivatives is crucial for conducting toxicity studies in in vivo models. This review provides insights into the unique expression patterns of BPA and its analogues among different cell types and their underlying toxicity mechanisms. Lack of a consistent cell line for toxic effects necessitates exploring various cell lines. Among the individual monomers, BisGMA was found to be the most toxic; however, BisDMA and BADGE generates BPA endogenously and found to elicit severe adverse reactions. In correlating in vitro data with in vivo findings, further research is necessary to classify the elutes as human carcinogens or xenoestrogens. Though the basic mechanisms underlying toxicity were believed to be the production of intracellular reactive oxygen species and a corresponding decline in glutathione levels, several underlying mechanisms were identified to stimulate cellular responses at low concentrations. The review calls for further research to assess the synergistic interactions of co-monomers and other components in dental resins. The review emphasizes the clinical relevance of these findings, highlighting the necessity for safer dental materials and underscoring the potential health risks associated with current dental resin systems.

Self-Reported Allergic Occupational Contact Dermatitis among Dental Healthcare Professionals in United Arab Emirates -A Cross Sectional Study

In dentistry, occupational contact dermatitis may affect dental professionals along with technicians, nurses, and patients. Changes to dental practice in recent years have altered the reported frequencies of allergens causing contact dermatitis in both dental professionals and dental patients. In the current cross-sectional study, we used a structured questionnaire and clinical examinations to examine the prevalence of self-reported hand eczema among United Arab Emirates (UAE). The relationship between subjective skin discomfort and latex, composite/bonding, or other dental materials also was explored. A structured questionnaire was designed to analyze the prevalence of skin conditions among dental professionals and study its implication in gender, occupation, and age groups. The questionnaire included information about skin symptoms, atopy, occupational experience, and other background factors like respiratory symptoms, work history and methods, and exposure at work. It was distributed to 550 randomly selected dental healthcare professionals. Out of 550 dental healthcare workers contacted, 434 responded giving a response rate of 79%. The prevalence of dry and rough skin on the hands was highest (45%). There was a total of 29 cases of allergic contact dermatitis, 15 cases of contact urticaria, 12 cases of irritating contact dermatitis, and 1 incidence of onychomycosis among the 100 dental healthcare professionals who reported having dermatitis on their hands, forearms, or faces due to their daily dental chores. Rubber chemicals and natural rubber latex (NRL) in protective gloves used by dentists, as well as dental-restorative plastic materials (methylacrylates), were the most common causes of allergy. Dry skin and hand eczema were more common among dental healthcare professionals. Plastic gloves or NRL gloves with a low protein content are recommended for dental work. Skin exposure to methylacrylates or latex should be avoided.

The safety and biocompatibility of direct aesthetic restorative materials

Restorative dental materials are among the most important medical devices in terms of the numbers of patients who benefit and the technical sophistication of the products. Many though contain toxic or noxious substances, including potentially sensitising resin monomers, photoinitiators, acidic polymers and glass or ceramic filler particles. Despite this, dental materials are among the safest medical devices in use today, with very few reports of adverse reactions or injuries among both patients or the dental team. This paper considers the potential for adverse reactions to dental materials, current evidence for harm and finally examines the reasons why in real-world clinical use the likelihood of an adverse event is extremely low. Medical devices regulations, responsible manufacture and clinical vigilance all appear to play important roles in ensuring that dental materials do not cause or present a risk to patients. While this excellent in-practice safety record is welcome, there is now increasing interest in the 'macro' scale biocompatibility of dental materials and their packaging in the environment, subjects that have been relatively neglected until recently. It was concluded that this should be a priority for future research and development and support is needed from governments alongside the manufacturing industry and the profession.

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.