Journal of occupational health · 2014
Allergic contact dermatitis from two-component acrylic resin in a manicurist and a dental hygienist.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Minamoto Keiko
Аннотация
BACKGROUNDS: Two-component acrylic resin used in nail art and dentistry can cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but only a few reports from Japan have been published.
CASES: A 35-year-old female manicurist (case 1) and 30-year-old female dental hygienist (case 2) were diagnosed with ACD caused by ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate in a liquid monomer of two-component acrylic resin respectively. Case 1 was sensitized from direct skin contact with nail art acrylic products, which could have been avoided, and gave up both being a manicurist and a user. Onset in case 2 occurred when she started to work as an apprentice. She had believed that the cause of her symptoms was use of disposable natural rubber gloves, not a liquid monomer penetrating through her gloves, until she was patch tested positive to (meth)acrylates and liquid monomer.
CONCLUSIONS: To prevent sensitization, it should be emphasized in occupational training in both specialties that there should be no direct contact with acrylic products and that disposable gloves do not have sufficient protecting properties.
CASES: A 35-year-old female manicurist (case 1) and 30-year-old female dental hygienist (case 2) were diagnosed with ACD caused by ethyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate in a liquid monomer of two-component acrylic resin respectively. Case 1 was sensitized from direct skin contact with nail art acrylic products, which could have been avoided, and gave up both being a manicurist and a user. Onset in case 2 occurred when she started to work as an apprentice. She had believed that the cause of her symptoms was use of disposable natural rubber gloves, not a liquid monomer penetrating through her gloves, until she was patch tested positive to (meth)acrylates and liquid monomer.
CONCLUSIONS: To prevent sensitization, it should be emphasized in occupational training in both specialties that there should be no direct contact with acrylic products and that disposable gloves do not have sufficient protecting properties.