Nickel-induced facial dermatitis: Adolescents beware of the cell phone

Cutis

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 199-200

  Moennich, Jessica N ^a   Zirwas, Matthew ^a   Jacob, Sharon E ^a,b  

^a THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NICKEL;

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MOBILE PHONE; RISK FACTOR; SKIN ALLERGY; TIME;

ADOLESCENT; CELLULAR PHONE; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; NICKEL; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77954062028     PISSN: 00114162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996-1998. Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:272-273.
2. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF, Warshaw EM, et al. Detection of nickel sensitivity has increased in North American patchtest patients. Dermatitis. 2008;19:16-19.
3. Beattie PE, Green C, Lowe G, et al. Which children should we patch test? Clin Exp Dermatol. 2007; 32:6-11.
4. Wöhrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, et al. Patch testing in children, adults, and the elderly: influence of age and sex on sensitization patterns. Pediatr Dermatol. 2003;20:119-123.
5. Roul S, Ducombs G, Taieb A. Usefulness of the European standard series for patch testing in children. a 3-year single-centre study of 337 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:232-235.
6. Duarte I, Lazzarini R, Kobata CM. Contact dermatitis in adolescents. Am J Contact Dermat. 2003;14:200-202.
7. Clayton TH, Wilkinson SM, Rawcliffe C, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis in children: should pattern of dermatitis determine referral? a retrospective study of 500 children tested between 1995 and 2004 in one UK centre. Br J Dermatol. 2006;154:114-117.
8. Jacob SE, Steele T, Brod B, et al. Dispelling the myths behind pediatric patch testing-experience from our tertiary care patch testing centers. Pediatr Dermatol. 2008;25:296-300.
9. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Zachariae C, et al. The outcome of dimethylglyoxime testing in a sample of cell phones in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:38-42.
10. Danish Ministry of Environment. Statutory order of the Danish ministry of environment regarding prohibition of sale and labeling of certain nickel containing products. Copenhagen, Denmark: Statutory Order No. 854; December 16, 1991.
11. Nickel industry shares concerns over mobile phone allergic reactions [press release]. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Nickel Institute; October 17, 2008.
12. Pazzaglia M, Lucente P, Vincenzi C, et al. Contact dermatitis from nickel in mobile phones. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:362-363.
13. Wöhrl S, Jandl T, Stingl G, et al. Mobile telephone as new source for nickel dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:113.
14. Livideanu C, Giordano-Labadie F, Paul C. Cellular phone addiction and allergic contact dermatitis to nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:130-131.
15. Luo J, Bercovitch L. Cellphone contact dermatitis with nickel allergy. CMAJ. 2008;178:23-24.
16. Allergens of the year. American Contact Dermatitis Society. http://www.contactderm.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID53467. Accessed August 19, 2009.