Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  allergic contact dermatitis
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Occupational exposure to propranolol: A rarely recognised cause of allergic contact dermatitis

100%
Ali F. R., Shackleton D. B., Kingston T. P., Williams J. D.
International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
|
2015
|
vol. 28
|
issue 3
639-640
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Niepożądane reakcje skórne spowodowane kontaktem z materiałem drewnianym

75%
Chomiczewska-Skóra D.
Medycyna Pracy
|
2013
|
vol. 64
|
issue 1
103-118
EN
Various adverse cutaneous reactions may occur as a result of exposure to wood dust or solid woods. These include allergic contact dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis and, more rarely, contact urticaria, photoallergic and phototoxic reactions. Also cases of erythema multiforme-like reactions have been reported. Contact dermatitis, both allergic and irritant, is most frequently provoked by exotic woods, e.g. wood of the Dalbergia spp., Machaerium scleroxylon or Tectona grandis. Cutaneous reactions are usually associated with manual or machine woodworking, in occupational setting or as a hobby. As a result of exposure to wood dust, airborne contact dermatitis is often diagnosed. Cases of allergic contact dermatitis due to solid woods of finished articles as jewelry or musical instruments have also been reported. The aim of the paper is to present various adverse skin reactions related to exposure to woods, their causal factors and sources of exposure, based on the review of literature. Med Pr 2013;64(1):103–118
PL
W następstwie narażenia na pył drewna lub materiał drewniany w innej postaci może dochodzić do niepożądanych reakcji skórnych. Obejmują one kontaktowe zapalenie skóry o etiologii alergicznej i z podrażnienia oraz znacznie rzadziej pokrzywkę kontaktową, reakcje fotoalergiczne i fototoksyczne. Opisywano też przypadki rumienia wielopostaciowego. Kontaktowe zapalenie skóry, zarówno alergiczne, jak i z podrażnienia, najczęściej jest spowodowane kontaktem z egzotycznymi gatunkami drewna, takimi jak różne odmiany palisandru czy drewno teak. Występuje ono zwykle u osób zajmujących się zawodowo lub hobbistycznie ręczną albo mechaniczną obróbką drewna. W związku z narażeniem na pył drewna nierzadko obserwuje się powietrznopochodny charakter zmian skórnych. Znane są również przypadki alergicznego kontaktowego zapalenia skóry w następstwie styczności z gotowymi wyrobami drewnianymi, takimi jak biżuteria czy instrumenty muzyczne. Celem pracy jest prezentacja niepożądanych reakcji skórnych związanych z ekspozycją na materiał drewniany, wywołujących je czynników i możliwych źródeł narażenia, na podstawie dostępnego piśmiennictwa. Med. Pr. 2013;64(1):103–118
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers in students of dental medicine and dental patients

75%
Lyapina M., Dencheva M., Krasteva A., Tzekova M., Kisselova-Yaneva A.
International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
|
2014
|
vol. 27
|
issue 5
797-807
EN
Objectives: A multitude of acrylic monomers is used in dentistry. Formaldehyde is a ubiquitous chemical agent, which is an ingredient of some dental materials and may be released from methacrylate-based composites. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the incidence and the risk of cross-sensitization to some methacrylic monomers (methylmethacrylate – MMA, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate – TEGDMA, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate – EGDMA, 2,2-bis-[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacrylo-xypropoxy)phenyl]-propane – Bis-GMA, 2-hydroxy-ethyl methacrylate 2-HEMA, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate) and formaldehyde in students of dentistry, dental professionals and dental patients. Material and Methods: A total of 139 participants were included in the study, i.e., occupationally exposed dental professionals, students of the 3rd, 4th and 6th year of dental medicine, and occupationally unexposed dental patients. They were patch-tested with methacrylic monomers and formaldehyde. The results were subjected to statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Results: From the allergic to formaldehyde students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine, 46.2% were also sensitized to MMA. Among the group of patients, the incidence of cross-sensitization to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers was as follows: to TEGDMA – 20.6%, to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate – 20.7%, to 2-HEMA – 20.7% and to tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate – 24.1%. Contact allergy to MMA was diagnosed among 22.7%, and to TEGDMA – among 27.1% of the students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine. In the group of occupationally unexposed dental patients the prevalence of contact allergy to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate was 20.7%, to Bis-GMA – 27.6%, to 2-HEMA – 44.9% and to tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate – 38.0%. Conclusions: The students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine could be outlined as a group at risk of sensitization to MMA and TEGDMA and of cross-sensitization to MMA and formaldehyde. Probably, due to the ubiquitous occurrence of formaldehyde and the wide use of composite resins and bonding agents containing TEGDMA, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, 2-HEMA and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate in dentistry, the group of dental patients could be at risk of cross-sensitization to formaldehyde and some methacrylic monomers.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Direct and airborne contact dermatitis in a beekeeper from the Małopolska region

75%
Basista K.
International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
|
2012
|
vol. 25
|
issue 4
499-500
EN
The paper describes an atypical case of simultaneous airborne and direct contact dermatitis in a beekeeper from the Małopolska region. This is the third such case described in a beekeeper in the world and the fi rst in Poland. I suggest that propolis should be regarded as both a direct and airborne contact allergen in beekeepers.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Pilot study of contact sensitization to rubber allergens and bisphenol A amongst dental students

75%
Lyapina M. G., Krasteva A., Dencheva M., Tzekova M., Nikolov G., Yaneva-Deliverska M., Kisselova-Yaneva A.
International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
|
2017
|
vol. 30
|
issue 3
397-405
EN
Objectives The aim of this study has been to evaluate the rate of contact sensitization to some rubber allergens and to bisphenol A (BPA) amongst students of dental medicine and dental patients. Material and Methods A total of 50 participants were included in the study: 40 students of dental medicine exposed to the studied rubber allergens and BPA-based dental materials during the course of their education; 10 dental patients without occupational exposure to the latter substances served as a control group. All of them were patch-tested with the studied rubber allergens and bisphenol A. Results Highest was the sensitizing action of carba mix, followed by benzoyl peroxide and mercapto mix. The sensitization rate for carba mix was significantly higher for dental students as well as for the whole studied population, if compared to the one for thiuram mix (Chi² = 12.9, p < 0.001; Chi² = 13.9, p < 0.001), bisphenol A (Chi² = 8.9, p < 0.001; Chi² = 11.9, p < 0.001), toluenesulfonamide formaldehyde resin (Chi² = 10.7, p < 0.001; Chi² = 13.9, p < 0.001) and benzoyl peroxide (Chi² = 4.7, p = 0.03; Chi² = 5.8, p = 0.016), and for dental patients, if compared to the one for mercapto mix (Chi² = 7.07, p = 0.008). Concomitant positive skin patch-test reactions to carba mix and to benzoyl peroxide, and to all the studied allergens were established. Conclusions Carba mix could be outlined as a sensitizer of paramount importance for dental students as well as for dental patients. Benzoyl peroxide was the second ranked sensitizer for dental students. Positive skin patch-test reactions to bisphenol A and toluenesulfonamide formaldehyde resin were established only among the group of dental students. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2017;30(3):397–405
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Konserwanty jako istotne czynniki etiologiczne alergicznego kontaktowego zapalenia skóry

63%
Kręcisz B., Chomiczewska-Skóra D., Kieć-Świerczyńska M.
Medycyna Pracy
|
2015
|
vol. 66
|
issue 3
327-332
EN
Background Preservatives present in cosmetics and other industrial products can cause allergic contact dermatitis. The aim of the study was to assess the frequency of allergy to selected preservatives in consecutive patients examined due to contact dermatitis in the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, and to establish whether individuals sensitized to formaldehyde react simultaneously to formaldehyde releasers. Material and Methods A group of 405 patients (308 females and 97 males) was examined in 2011–2013. In all participants patch tests with a series of 13 preservatives (paraben mix, formaldehyde, Quaternium 15, chloromethylisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone mix, methyldibromoglutaronitrile, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, benzalkonium chloride, sodium metabisulfite, produced by Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Sweden) were performed. Results Of the 405 patients 74 (including 52 females) showed positive results of patch tests. Contact allergy to at least 1 preservative was noted in 47 (11.6%) patients, including 34 (11%) females and 13 (13.4%) males. Methylisothiazolinone proved to be the most frequent sensitizer – 4.7% (5.2% females, 3.1% males) while parabens, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol and imidazolidinyl urea (0.2%) were found to be the least frequent. Fourteen (3.4%) participants, 10 women and 4 men, were allergic to formaldehyde and/or formaldehyde releasers. In 11 (78.6%) of them monovalent hypersensitivity was observed. In 13 (3.2% of the examined group) patients allergy to preservatives might have been of occupational origin. Conclusions Preservatives, particularly isothiazolinones, are significant causal factors of allergic contact dermatitis, including occupational cases. Individuals sensitized to formaldehyde may react simultaneously to formaldehyde releasers, however, such reactions are relatively rare. Med Pr 2015;66(3):327–332
PL
Wstęp Konserwanty zawarte w kosmetykach i wielu innych produktach przemysłowych mogą być przyczyną alergicznego kontaktowego zapalenia skóry. Celem pracy było określenie częstości uczulenia na wybrane konserwanty u kolejnych pacjentów Instytutu Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera w Łodzi diagnozowanych z powodu kontaktowego zapalenia skóry oraz ustalenie, czy osoby uczulone na formaldehyd reagują jednocześnie na donory formaldehydu. Materiał i metody U 405 osób (308 kobiet, 97 mężczyzn), diagnozowanych w latach 2011–2013, przeprowadzono serię testów płatkowych z 13 środkami konserwującymi (mieszanina parabenów, formaldehyd, Quaternium 15, mieszanina chlorometyloizotiazolinon/metyloizotiazolinon, metyloizotiazolinon, metylodibromo- glutaronitryl, diazolinydylomocznik, imidazolidynylomocznik, DMDM hydantoina, 2-bromo-2-nitropropano-1,3-diol, butylokarbaminian jodopropynylu, chlorek benzalkonium, pirosiarczan sodowy – prod. Chemotechnique Diagnostics, Szwecja). Wyniki U 405 pacjentów stwierdzono 74 dodatnie wyniki testów płatkowych, w tym 52 u kobiet. Uczulenie na przynajmniej jeden z badanych konserwantów zaobserwowano u 47 osób (11,6%), w tym 34 kobiet (11%) i 13 mężczyzn (13,4%). Najczęściej uczulał metyloizotiazolinon (4,7%, w tym 5,2% kobiet, 3,1% mężczyzn), a najrzadziej parabeny, 2-bromo-2-nitropropano-1,3-diol i imidazolidynylomocznik (0,2%). Czternaście osób (3,4%), w tym 10 kobiet (3,2%) i 4 mężczyzn (4,1%), było uczulonych na formaldehyd lub/i donory formaldehydu. Aż u 11 z nich (78,6%) uczulenie miało charakter jednoważny. U 13 osób (3,2% ogółu badanych) uczulenie na konserwanty mogło mieć charakter zawodowy. Wnioski Środki konserwujące, szczególnie pochodne izotiazolinonu, są istotnymi czynnikami przyczynowymi alergicznego kontaktowego zapalenia skóry, w tym o pochodzeniu zawodowym. Osoby uczulone na formaldehyd mogą reagować jednocześnie na niektóre donory formaldehydu, ale reakcja ta zachodzi stosunkowo rzadko. Med. Pr. 2015;66(3):327–332
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.