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

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  methacrylic monomers
help Sort By:

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

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

100%
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.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Concomitant sensitization to glutaraldehyde and methacrylic monomers among dentists and their patients

67%
Lyapina M. G., Dencheva M., Krasteva-Panova A., Tzekova-Yaneva M., Deliverska M., Kisselova-Yaneva A.
Medycyna Pracy
|
2016
|
vol. 67
|
issue 3
311-320
PL
Wstęp W stomatologii stosuje się wiele monomerów metakrylanowych, a także aldehyd glutarowy (G), który wchodzi w skład powszechnie dostępnych wyrobów jako środek przeciwbakteryjny. Celem badania była ocena częstości i ryzyka współistniejącego uczulenia u studentów stomatologii, uczniów technikum dentystycznego, lekarzy stomatologów i pacjentów gabinetów dentystycznych na aldehyd glutarowy i niektóre monomery metakrylanowe (metakrylan metylu (methyl methacrylate – MMA), dimetakrylan glikolu trietylenowego (triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate – TEGDMA), dimetakrylan glikolu etylenowego (ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate – EGDMA), 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroksy-3-metakryloksypropoksy)fenylo]propan (2,2-bis-[4-(2-hydroxy-3- methacrylo-xypropoxy)phenyl]-propane – Bis-GMA), metakrylan 2-hydroksy-etylu (2-hydroxy-ethyl methacrylate – 2-HEMA) i metakrylan tetrahydrofurfurylu (tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate – THFMA)). Materiał i metody Badaniem objęto 262 osoby – studentów stomatologii, uczniów technikum dentystycznego i lekarzy stomatologów oraz pacjentów gabinetów dentystycznych jako grupę porównawczą. U wszystkich badanych wykonano testy płatkowe z monomerami metakrylanowymi i aldehydem glutarowym. Uzyskane wyniki poddano analizie statystycznej (p < 0,05). Wyniki Najwięcej studentów stomatologii było uczulonych jednocześnie na TEGDMA i G (15,5%), natomiast najwięcej pacjentów – na EGDMA i G (16,4%). Współistniejące uczulenie u lekarzy stomatologów występowało znacznie rzadziej niż w powyższych grupach – badani najczęściej byli uczuleni jednocześnie na TEGDMA i G (7,7%). W grupie najniższego ryzyka uczulenia współistniejącego znaleźli się uczniowie technikum dentystycznego, u których narażenie na aldehyd glutarowy jest mniej prawdopodobne. Wnioski Studentów stomatologii i pacjentów gabinetów dentystycznych można uznać za grupy ryzyka uczulenia współistniejącego na aldehyd glutarowy i monomery metakrylanowe, lekarzy stomatologów za grupę podwyższonego ryzyka uczulenia współistniejącego na TEGDMA i aldehydy powszechnie stosowane w stomatologii, natomiast uczniów technikum dentystycznego za grupę niskiego ryzyka uczulenia współistniejącego na aldehyd glutarowy i monomery metakrylanowe. Med. Pr. 2016;67(3):311–320
EN
Background A multitude of methacrylic monomers is used in dentistry. Glutaraldehyde (G) is used in dental practice and consumer products as a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the frequency and the risk of concomitant sensitization to some methacrylic monomers (methyl methacrylate (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 (THFMA)) and glutaraldehyde in students of dentistry, students from the dental technician school, dental professionals and dental patients. Material and Methods A total of 262 participants were included in the study: students of dentistry, students from the dental technician school, dental professionals, and dental patients as a control group. All were patch-tested with methacrylic monomers and glutaraldehyde. The results were subject to the statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Results Among the group of dental students, the highest frequency of concomitant sensitization was to TEGDMA and G (15.5%). In the group of patients the highest frequency of concomitant sensitization was to EGDMA and G (16.4%). The frequency of concomitant sensitization among dental professionals was much lower, with the highest rate to TEGDMA and G (7.7%), too. We consider the students from the dental technician school, where the exposure to glutaraldehyde is less likely, to be the group at a lesser risk of concomitant sensitization. Conclusions Dental students and dental patients could be outlined as groups at the risk of concomitant sensitization to glutaraldehyde and methacrylic monomers. For dental professionals, we assumed an increased risk for concomitant sensitization to TEGDMA and aldehydes that are commonly used in dentistry. We consider the students from the dental technician school to be the group at a lesser risk of concomitant sensitization to glutaraldehyde and methacrylic monomers. Med Pr 2016;67(3):311–320
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.