Dermatology online journal · 2012
Letter: Allergic contact dermatitis from sculptured acrylic nails: special presentation with a possible airborne pattern.
Клинический случайПисьмо в редакциюНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Maio Paula, Carvalho Rodrigo, Amaro Cristina, Santos Raquel, Cardoso Jorge
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Sculptured artificial acrylic nails are widely used in developed countries. Methylmethacrylate was first reported in 1941 as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Since then, occupational contact allergies to acrylates in dentistry, orthopedic surgery, printing industry and other industries have been reported.
OBJECTIVE: We describe 3 patients with contact allergy to acrylates in artificial nails.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Patch tests with the Portuguese baseline series of contact allergens and an extended series of acrylates was applied.
RESULTS: We observed three female patients with allergic contact dermatitis from sculptured acrylic nails. Two of these patients were both customers and also technical nail beauticians. Two patients developed periungual eczema; one patient presented only with eyelid dermatitis and no hand or periungual lesions. The tests showed positive reactions to 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (2-HEMA) and 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate (2-HPMA) in three patients.
CONCLUSION: Our cases demonstrate the variety of clinical presentations of allergic contact dermatitis from acrylic nails. They show the need to warn patients of persistent and sometimes permanent side effects of these nails. They also emphasize the importance of cosmetic ingredient labeling.
OBJECTIVE: We describe 3 patients with contact allergy to acrylates in artificial nails.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Patch tests with the Portuguese baseline series of contact allergens and an extended series of acrylates was applied.
RESULTS: We observed three female patients with allergic contact dermatitis from sculptured acrylic nails. Two of these patients were both customers and also technical nail beauticians. Two patients developed periungual eczema; one patient presented only with eyelid dermatitis and no hand or periungual lesions. The tests showed positive reactions to 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (2-HEMA) and 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate (2-HPMA) in three patients.
CONCLUSION: Our cases demonstrate the variety of clinical presentations of allergic contact dermatitis from acrylic nails. They show the need to warn patients of persistent and sometimes permanent side effects of these nails. They also emphasize the importance of cosmetic ingredient labeling.