Occupational allergens in dentistry

Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Volumn 4, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 403-409

  Hamann, Curtis P ^a,b   Rodgers, Pamela A ^a   Sullivan, Kim M ^a  

^a SmartHealth   (United States)

^b SmartPractice   (United States)

Author keywords

Dermatitis; Disinfectants; Latex; Metals; Methacrylates; Respiratory; Rubber

Indexed keywords

2 HYDROXYETHYL METHACRYLATE; ALLERGEN; BENZOTHIAZOLE DERIVATIVE; CARBAMIC ACID DERIVATIVE; CORTICOSTEROID; DENTAL ALLOY; ETHYLENE GLYCOL DIMETHACRYLATE; GLUTARALDEHYDE; GOLD; LATEX; MERCURY; METHACRYLIC ACID 2 HYDROXYPROPYL ESTER; METHACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; METHACRYLIC ACID METHYL ESTER; NICKEL; PALLADIUM; POLYURETHAN; POLYVINYLCHLORIDE; RUBBER; THIOMERSAL; TOSYLCHLORAMIDE SODIUM; TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL DIMETHACRYLATE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ALLERGIC RHINITIS; CONJUNCTIVITIS; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTACT DERMATITIS; DELAYED HYPERSENSITIVITY; DENTISTRY; HUMAN; IMMEDIATE TYPE HYPERSENSITIVITY; OCCUPATIONAL ALLERGY; OCCUPATIONAL ASTHMA; PATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; URTICARIA;

ALLERGENS; ASTHMA; DENTISTRY; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; GLUTARAL; HUMANS; HYPERSENSITIVITY; LATEX; METHACRYLATES; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PATCH TESTS; PREVALENCE; RUBBER; URTICARIA;

EID: 4644254235     PISSN: 15284050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00130832-200410000-00012     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Alanko K, Susitaival P, Jolanki R, Kanerva L. Occupational skin diseases among dental nurses. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:77-82.
2. Rietschel RL, Mathias CG, Fowler JF Jr, et al. Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat 2002; 13:170-176.
3. Piirila P, Hodgson U, Estlander T, et al. Occupational respiratory hypersensitivity in dental personnel. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2002; 75:209-216.
4. Nettis E, Colanardi MC, Ferrannini A. Patch testing with natural rubber latex. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:43-44.
5. Sood A, Taylor JS. Acrylic reactions: a review of 56 cases. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:346-347.
6. Wrangsjo K, Swartling C, Meding B. Occupational dermatitis in dental personnel: contact dermatitis with special reference to (meth)acrylates in 174 patients. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45:158-163.
7. Lindstrom M, Alanko K, Keskinen H, Kanerva L. Dentist's occupational asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates. Allergy 2002; 57:543-545.
8. Piirila P, Kanerva L, Keskinen H, et al. Occupational respiratory hypersensitivity caused by preparations containing acrylates in dental personnel. Clin Exp Allergy 1998; 28:1404-1411.
9. Lonnroth EC, Shahnavaz H. Adverse health reactions in skin, eyes, and respiratory tract among dental personnel in Sweden. Swed Dent J 1998; 22:33-45.
10. Kirby BS, Doyle A, Gilula LA. Acute bronchospasm due to exposure to polymethylmethacrylate vapors during percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:543-544.
11. Wong HY, Vidovich MI. Acute bronchospasm associated with polymethylmethacrylate cement. Anesthesiology 1997; 87:696-698.
12. Henriks-Eckerman ML, Alanko K, Jolanki R, et al. Exposure to airborne methacrylates and natural rubber latex allergens in dental clinics. J Environ Monit 2001; 3:302-305.
13. Nayebzadeh A, Dufresne A. Evaluation of exposure to methyl methacrylate among dental laboratory technicians. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1999; 60:625-628.
14. Andreasson H, Boman A, Johnsson S, et al. On permeability of methyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate through protective gloves in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci 2003; 111:529-535. An excellent study evaluating permeation of dental methacrylates through gloves using common solvents and concentrations. The use of multiple parameters (i.e. lag breakthrough time and permeation rates) was also helpful.
15. Lonnroth EC, Wellendorf H, Ruyter E. Permeability of different types of medical protective gloves to acrylic monomers. Eur J Oral Sci 2003; 111:440-446.
16. Nakamura M, Oshima H, Hashimoto Y. Monomer permeability of disposable dental gloves. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90:81-85.
17. Yeang HY. Natural rubber latex allergens: new developments. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 4:99-104. A solid review of the latest developments characterizing relevant allergens in natural rubber.
18. Swanson MC, Ramalingam M. Starch and natural rubber allergen interaction in the production of latex gloves: a hand-held aerosol. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110:S15-S20.
19. Charous BL, Schuenemann PJ, Swanson MC. Passive dispersion of latex aeroallergen in a healthcare facility. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2000; 85:285-290.
20. Barbara J, Santais MC, Levy DA, et al. Immunoadjuvant properties of glove cornstarch powder in latex-induced hypersensitivity. Clin Exp Allergy 2003; 33:106-112. This study provides interesting insight into the exacerbation of NRL allergy by cornstarch powder.
21. Saary MJ, Kanani A, Alghadeer H, et al. Changes in rates of natural rubber latex sensitivity among dental school students and staff members after changes in latex gloves. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 109:131-135.
22. Siew C, Hamann CP, Gruninger SE, et al. Type I latex allergic reactions among dental professionals, 1996-2001 [abstract]. J Dental Res 2003; 82:1718.
23. de Silva HD, Gardner LM, Drew AC, et al. The hevein domain of the major latex-glove allergen Hev b 6.01 contains dominant T cell reactive sites. Clin Exp Allergy 2004; 34:611-618. An important study establishing Hev b 6.01, hevein, as an important T-cell and B-cell immunogen.
24. Raulf-Heimsoth M, Rozynek P, Bruning T, Rihs HP. Characterization of B- and T-cell responses and HLA-DR4 binding motifs of the latex allergen Hev b 6.01 (prohevein) and its post-transcriptionally formed proteins Hev b 6.02 and Hev b 6.03. Allergy 2004; 59:724-733.
25. Lehto M, Koivuluhta M, Wang G, et al. Epicutaneous natural rubber latex sensitization induces T helper 2-type dermatitis and strong prohevein-specific IgE response. J Invest Dermatol 2003; 120:633-640. One of the first studies to examine the immunological role of specific NRL proteins in the pathogenesis of epicutaneous sensitization and IgE-mediated responses.
26. Geier J, Lessmann H, Uter W, Schnuch A. Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 1995-2001. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:39-44.
27. Brehler R, Rutter A, Kutting B. Allergenicity of natural rubber latex gloves. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46:65-71.
28. Bergendorff O, Hansson C. Spontaneous formation of thiuram disulfides in solutions of iron(III) dithiocarbamates. J Agric Food Chem 2002; 50:1092-1096.
29. Kohn WG, Collins AS, Cleveland JL, et al. Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings - 2003. MMWR Recomm Rep 2003; 52:1-61.
30. Ravis SM, Shaffer MP, Shaffer C, et al. Glutaraldehyde-induced and formaldehyde-induced allergic contact dermatitis among dental hygienists and dental assistants. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134:1072-1078. An interesting study of contact allergy to glutaraldehyde in dentistry that also discussed the relevance of chemical safety training.
31. Hamann CP, Rodgers PA, Sullivan K. Allergic contact dermatitis in dental professionals: effective diagnosis and treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134:185-194. An interesting case study of multiple occupational allergies in a dental worker with emphasis on practical management and worker education.
32. Shaffer MP, Belsito DV. Allergic contact dermatitis from glutaraldehyde in health-care workers. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43:150-156.
33. Halatek T, Opalska B, Swiercz R, et al. Glutaraldehyde inhalation exposure of rats: effects on lung morphology, Clara-cell protein, and hyaluronic acid levels in BAL. Inhal Toxicol 2003; 15:85-97.
34. Gannon PF, Bright P, Campbell M, et al. Occupational asthma due to glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde in endoscopy and x ray departments. Thorax 1995; 50:156-159.
35. Vyas A, Pickering CA, Oldham LA, et al. Survey of symptoms, respiratory function, and immunology and their relation to glutaraldehyde and other occupational exposures among endoscopy nursing staff. Occup Environ Med 2000; 57:752-759.
36. Azadi S, Klink KJ, Meade BJ. Divergent immunological responses following glutaraldehyde exposure. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2004; 197:1-8. An important finding in this study was the dose-response relationship between glutaraldehyde concentration and the type of immunological reaction.
37. Freiman A, Al Layali A, Sasseville D. Patch testing with thimerosal in a Canadian center: an 11-year experience. Am J Contact Dermat 2003; 14:138-143.
38. Aalto-Korte K, Alanko K, Henriks-Eckerman ML, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from bisphenol A in PVC gloves. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49:202-205.
39. Martin MD, Broughton S, Drangsholt M. Oral lichen planus and dental materials: a case-control study. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:331-336.
40. Filon FL, Uderzo D, Bagnato E. Sensitization to palladium chloride: a 10-year evaluation. Am J Contact Dermat 2003; 14:78-81.
41. Jensen CS, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, et al. Release of nickel ions from stainless steel alloys used in dental braces and their patch test reactivity in nickel-sensitive individuals. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:300-304. Interesting combination of in-vitro and in-vivo studies tracing metal availability in the oral cavity.
42. Moller H. Dental gold alloys and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47:63-66.
43. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Rashid RG. Dentists' molar restoration choices and longevity: a web-based survey. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91:363-367.
44. Warshaw EM. Patch-testing practices of American Contact Dermatitis Society members: a cross-sectional survey. Am J Contact Dermat 2003; 14:5-11. This excellent paper explores patch testing practices in these specialized clinicians, extending a solid body of work on this topic by this investigator and collaborators.
45. Fleming CJ, Burden AD, Forsyth A. Accuracy of questions related to allergic contact dermatitis. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2000; 11:218-221.
46. van der Valk PG, Devos SA, Coenraads PJ. Evidence-based diagnosis in patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 48:121-125. A solid review of the issues and a practical perspective on the positive predictive value of patch testing.
47. Schiessl C, Wolber C, Strohal R. Reproducibility of patch tests: comparison of identical test allergens from different commercial sources. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:27-30.
48. Saripalli YV, Archen F, Belsito DV. The detection of clinically relevant contact allergens using a standard screening tray of twenty-three allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003; 49:65-69. The results of this study clearly establish the limits of patch test interpretation and the need for more than 23 allergens.
49. Farrell AL, Warshaw EM, Zhao Y, Nelson D. Prevalence and methodology of patch testing by allergists in the United States: results of a cross-sectional survey. Am J Contact Dermat 2002; 13:157-163.
50. Warshaw EM, Nelson D. Prevalence of patch testing and methodology of dermatologists in the US: results of a cross-sectional survey. Am J Contact Dermat 2002; 13:53-58.
51. Suneja T, Belsito DV. Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E. test methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001; 45:836-839.
52. Kanerva L. Cross-reactions of multifunctional methacrylates and acrylates. Acta Odontol Scand 2001; 59:320-329.
53. Hamilton RG. Diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy. Methods 2002; 27:22-31.
54. Alenius H, Turjanmaa K, Palosuo T. Natural rubber latex allergy. Occup Environ Med 2002; 59:419-424.
55. Farrell AL, Warshaw EM, Zhao Y, Nelson D. Prevalence and methodology of evaluation for latex allergy among allergists in the United States: results of a cross-sectional survey. Am J Contact Dermat 2002; 13:183-189.
56. Warshaw EM, Nelson D. Prevalence of evaluation for latex allergy and association with practice characteristics in United States dermatologists: results of a cross-sectional survey. Am J Contact Dermat 2001; 12:139-145.
57. Yip L, Hickey V, Wagner B, et al. Skin prick test reactivity to recombinant latex allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2000; 121:292-299.
58. Crippa M, Pasolini G. Allergic reactions due to glove-lubricant-powder in health-care workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1997; 70:399-402.
59. Sommer S, Wilkinson SM, Beck MH, et al. Type IV hypersensitivity reactions to natural rubber latex: results of a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 2002; 146:114-117.
60. Campo P, Lummus ZL, Bernstein DI. Advances in methods used in evaluation of occupational asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2004; 10:142-146. A solid review of the latest techniques in assessing occupational asthma.
61. Carrozzi FM, Katelaris CH, Burke TV, Widmer RP. Minimizing the risks of latex allergy: the effectiveness of written information. Aust Dent J 2002; 47:237-240.
62. Ohlson CG, Svensson L. Prevention of allergy to acrylates and latex in dental personnel. Swed Dent J 2002; 26:141-147.
63. Emmett EA. Occupational contact dermatitis: II. Risk assessment and prognosis. Am J Contact Dermat 2003; 14:21-30. An excellent review of risk assessment, defining worker exposure, dose-response relationships and practical issues in diagnosing occupational skin disease.
64. Holness DL, Mace SR. Results of evaluating health care workers with prick and patch testing. Am J Contact Dermat 2001; 12:88-92.
65. Bernstein DI, Karnani R, Biagini RE, et al. Clinical and occupational outcomes in health care workers with natural rubber latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003; 90:209-213.
66. Adisesh A, Meyer JD, Cherry NM. Prognosis and work absence due to occupational contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46:273-279.
67. Kadyk DL, McCarter K, Achen F, Belsito DV. Quality of life in patients with allergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003; 49:1037-1048.
68. FDA. Medical devices; patient examination and surgeons' gloves: test procedures and acceptance criteria. Federal Register 2003; 68:15404-15417.
69. Crippa M, Belleri L, Mistrello G, et al. Prevention of latex allergy among health care workers: evaluation of the extractable latex protein content in different types of medical gloves. Am J Ind Med 2003; 44:24-31. An important paper as it is probably the first to include NRL allergen as well as protein data on nitrite (synthetic rubber) gloves, lending credence to anecdotal reactions to nitrite.
70. Horn HM, Aldridge RD. Contact urticaria due to nitrite gloves. Contact Dermatitis 2003; 49:163-164.
71. Baur X. Measurement of airborne latex allergens. Methods 2002; 27:59-62.
72. Charous BL, Blanco C, Tarlo S, et al. Natural rubber latex allergy after 12 years: recommendations and perspectives. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 109:31-34.
73. Reiter JE. Latex sensitivity: an industrial hygiene perspective. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110:S121-S128.
74. Amr S, Suk WA. Latex allergy and occupational asthma in health care workers: adverse outcomes. Environ Health Perspect 2004; 112:378-381.
75. Bernstein DI. Management of natural rubber latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110:S111-S116.
76. Acero S, Alvarez MJ, Garcia BE, et al. Occupational asthma from natural rubber latex: specific inhalation challenge test and evolution. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2003; 13:155-161.