back to home

Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski, Gospodin Iliev
ISSN: 1312 773X (Online)
Issue: 2011, vol. 17, book 2
Subject Collection: Oral and Dental Medicine
Page: 91 - 92
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2011172.91
Online date:August 25, 2011

J of IMAB 2011; 17(2):91-92
Iliyana Stoeva
Department of Allergology, Physiotherapy and Clinical radiology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University - Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Latex gloves are a frequent cause of complaints in dental staff, which complaints may start during the student education.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of latex gloves-related complaints among dental students and to establish the etiology of these problems.
Material and Methods: 122 dental students completed a questionnaire. Those with latex glove-related complaints were evaluated for latex sensitivity by assessment of skin prick test and for cell-mediated sensitivity to rubber additives and occupational hazards by assessment of patch test.
Results: 8.2 % of dental students had skin hand complaints wearing latex gloves. 3 of them (30 %) showed a positive skin prick to latex and 1 of them (10 %) showed a positive patch test to rubber additives.
Conclusions: Dental students are at risk to develop occupational hypersensitivity although the limited exposure to latex gloves during education.

Key words: allergy, dermatitis, latex gloves.

1. The dental team and latex hypersensitivity. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999 Feb;130(2):257-264. [No authors listed] [PubMed]
2. Amin, A., Palenik C.J., Cheunq S.W., Burke F.J. Latex exposure and allergy: a survey of general dental practitioners and dental students. Int Denta J 1998 Apr;48(2):77-83. [PubMed]
3. Hamann, CP., Rodgers PA, Sullivan K. Allergic contact dermatitis in dental professionals: effective diagnosis and treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 2003 Feb;134(2):185-194. [PubMed]
4. Kanerva L., Lahtinen A., Toikkanen J., Forss H., Estlander T., Susitaival P., Jolanki R.  Increase in occupational skin diseases of dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis. 1999 Feb;40(2):104-108 [PubMed]
5. Kean, T., McNally M. Latex hypersensitivity: a closer look at consideration for dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc. 2009 May;75(4):279-282. [PubMed]
6. Lindberg, M., Silverdahl M. The use of protective gloves and the prevalence of hand eczema, skin complaints and allergy to natural rubber latex among dental personnel in the county of Uppsala, Sweden. Contact Dermatitis. 2000 Jul;43(1):4-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2000.043001004.x ]
7. Munksgaard, E.C. Permeability of protective gloves to (di)methacrylates in resinous dental materials. Scand J Dent Res. 1992 Jun;100(3):189-192. [PubMed] [CrossRef DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1992.tb01739.x ]
8. Nettis E, Colanardi MC, A. Ferrannini A. Patch testing with natural rubber latex. Contact Dermatitis 2004 Jan;50(1):43-44. [PubMed] [CrossRef DOI: 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00271d.x ]
9. Schmid K, Christoph Broding H, Niklas D, Drexler H. Latex sensitization in dental students using powder-free gloves low in latex protein: a cross-sectional study. Contact Dermatitis 2002;47:103-108. [PubMed] [CrossRef DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470209.x ]
10. Tarlo SM, Sussman GL, Holness DL. Latex sensitivity in dental students and staff: A cross-sectional study. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 1997 Mar;99(3):396-401. [PubMed] [CrossRef DOI:10.1016/S0091-6749(97)70058-7 ]

- Download FULL TEXT (PDF 118 KB)

Please cite this article as: Stoeva I. THE PREVALENCE OF LATEX GLOVES – RELATED COMPLAINTS AMONG DENTAL STUDENT. J of IMAB 2011; 17(2):91-92 doi:10.5272/jimab.2011172.91

back to current issue >