Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 1996
Allergic contact dermatitis to artificial fingernails prepared from UV light-cured acrylates.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Hemmer W, Focke M, Wantke F, Götz M, Jarisch R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Contact dermatitis from artificial nails made from self-curing acrylic resins is occasionally reported. Recently, UV light-cured products introducing new acrylics have become available.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to identify relevant allergens in commercial light-curing products by patch tests and to evaluate the efficacy of "hypoallergenic" products by inclusion into the test series.
METHODS: Patients wearing photobonded acrylic nails who had perionychial and subonychial eczema were patch tested with an acrylate battery and "hypoallergenic" commercial products.
RESULTS: Triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, hydroxyfunctional methacrylates, and (meth)-acrylated urethanes proved to be relevant allergens in photobonded nail preparations. Methacrylated epoxy resin sensitization was not observed. All "hypoallergenic" products provoked positive reactions.
CONCLUSION: The omission of irritant methacrylic acid in UV-curable products does not reduce the high sensitizing potential of new acrylates. In contrast to the manufacturers' declarations, all "hypoallergenic" products continue to include acrylate functional monomers and therefore continue to cause allergic sensitization.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to identify relevant allergens in commercial light-curing products by patch tests and to evaluate the efficacy of "hypoallergenic" products by inclusion into the test series.
METHODS: Patients wearing photobonded acrylic nails who had perionychial and subonychial eczema were patch tested with an acrylate battery and "hypoallergenic" commercial products.
RESULTS: Triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, hydroxyfunctional methacrylates, and (meth)-acrylated urethanes proved to be relevant allergens in photobonded nail preparations. Methacrylated epoxy resin sensitization was not observed. All "hypoallergenic" products provoked positive reactions.
CONCLUSION: The omission of irritant methacrylic acid in UV-curable products does not reduce the high sensitizing potential of new acrylates. In contrast to the manufacturers' declarations, all "hypoallergenic" products continue to include acrylate functional monomers and therefore continue to cause allergic sensitization.