Literature DB >> 16283908

The development and course of patch-test reactions to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate.

Marléne Isaksson1, Magnus Lindberg, Karin Sundberg, Anna Hallander, Magnus Bruze.   

Abstract

Because Methacrylic monomers are used in dental work, dental personnel, technicians, and patients are at risk of being sensitized. 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) are commonly used. Allergic test reactions to them sometimes appear beyond D7. This study was designed to study the development and course of positive test reactions to 2-HEMA and EGDMA in allergic patients as a mean to elucidate the issue of patch-test sensitization. 12 patients with contact allergy to 2-HEMA and EGDMA were retested with dilution series. The clinical course was followed for 1 month. During the study, 25 positive test reactions to 2-HEMA and 19 to EGDMA were diagnosed. Within the 1st week, 21 were noted for 2-HEMA and 18 for EGDMA. After 10 days, another 2 reactions appeared for 2-HEMA and 1 for EGDMA. All but 1 patient with the latter reactions also had positive reactions within the 1st week. After 1 month, 12 reactions for 2-HEMA and 10 for EGDMA remained. Patch-test reactions to 2-HEMA and EGDMA are long-lasting. The patch-test concentrations of 2.0% for 2-HEMA and EGDMA may be continually used. Positive test reactions emerging after 10 days do not automatically imply active sensitization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16283908     DOI: 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00705.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contact Dermatitis        ISSN: 0105-1873            Impact factor:   6.600


  5 in total

1.  The necessity of a test reading after 1 week to detect late positive patch test reactions in patients with oral lichen lesions.

Authors:  Camilla Ahlgren; Marléne Isaksson; Halvor Möller; Tony Axéll; Rolf Liedholm; Magnus Bruze
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Determination of susceptibility to sensitization to dental materials in atopic and non-atopic patients.

Authors:  G Rojas-Alcayaga; A Carrasco-Labra; P Danús; M-A Guzmán; I Morales-Bozo; B Urzúa; A Ortega-Pinto
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2012-03-01

3.  Contact Allergy in Western Sweden to Propolis of Four Different Origins.

Authors:  Gunnar Nyman; Sara Oldberg Wagner; Katarzyna Prystupa-Chalkidis; Kristina Ryberg; Lina Hagvall
Journal:  Acta Derm Venereol       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 3.875

4.  Investigation of flexural strength and cytotoxicity of acrylic resin copolymers by using different polymerization methods.

Authors:  Onur Sahin; Ali Kemal Ozdemir; Mehmet Turgut; Ali Boztug; Zeynep Sumer
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 1.904

5.  Outbreak of occupational allergic contact dermatitis from a smartphone screen protector glue.

Authors:  Francisca Herreros-Montejano; Martin Mowitz; Felipe Heras-Mendaza; Tatiana Sanz-Sánchez; María Elena Gatica-Ortega; Ana López-Mateos; Cristian Valenzuela-Oñate; Cristina Faura-Berruga; Violeta Zaragoza-Ninet; Magnus Bruze; Cecilia Svedman; María Antonia Pastor-Nieto
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 6.419

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.