Contact dermatitis · 2009
Contact allergy to epoxy (meth)acrylates.
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.
Aalto-Korte Kristiina, Jungewelter Soile, Henriks-Eckerman Maj-Len, Kuuliala Outi, Jolanki Riitta
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to epoxy (meth)acrylates, 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacryloxypropoxy) phenyl]propane (bis-GMA), 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-acryloxypropoxy)phenyl]-propane (bis-GA), 2,2-bis[4-(methacryl-oxyethoxy)phenyl] propane (bis-EMA), 2,2-bis[4-(methacryloxy)phenyl]-propane (bis-MA), and glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) is often manifested together with contact allergy to diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) epoxy resin.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse patterns of concomitant allergic reactions to the five epoxy (meth)acrylates in relation to exposure.
METHODS: We reviewed the 1994-2008 patch test files at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) for reactions to the five epoxy (meth)acrylates, and examined the patients' medical records for exposure.
RESULTS: Twenty-four patients had an allergic reaction to at least one of the studied epoxy (meth)acrylates, but specific exposure was found only in five patients: two bis-GMA allergies from dental products, two bis-GA allergies from UV-curable printing inks, and one bis-GA allergy from an anaerobic glue. Only 25% of the patients were negative to DGEBA epoxy resin.
CONCLUSIONS: The great majority of allergic patch test reactions to bis-GMA, bis-GA, GMA and bis-EMA were not associated with specific exposure, and cross-allergy to DGEBA epoxy resin remained a probable explanation. However, independent reactions to bis-GA indicated specific exposure. Anaerobic sealants may induce sensitization not only to aliphatic (meth)acrylates but also to aromatic bis-GA.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse patterns of concomitant allergic reactions to the five epoxy (meth)acrylates in relation to exposure.
METHODS: We reviewed the 1994-2008 patch test files at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) for reactions to the five epoxy (meth)acrylates, and examined the patients' medical records for exposure.
RESULTS: Twenty-four patients had an allergic reaction to at least one of the studied epoxy (meth)acrylates, but specific exposure was found only in five patients: two bis-GMA allergies from dental products, two bis-GA allergies from UV-curable printing inks, and one bis-GA allergy from an anaerobic glue. Only 25% of the patients were negative to DGEBA epoxy resin.
CONCLUSIONS: The great majority of allergic patch test reactions to bis-GMA, bis-GA, GMA and bis-EMA were not associated with specific exposure, and cross-allergy to DGEBA epoxy resin remained a probable explanation. However, independent reactions to bis-GA indicated specific exposure. Anaerobic sealants may induce sensitization not only to aliphatic (meth)acrylates but also to aromatic bis-GA.