head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2019, vol. 25, issue2
Subject Area: Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019252.2526
Published online: 22 April 2019

Original article

J of IMAB. 2019 Apr-Jun;25(2):2526-2531
Maya Lyapina1ORCID logo Corresponding Autoremail, Todor Kundurjiev2ORCID logo, Karolina Lyubomirova2, Evgeny Stanev3, Zaharina Savova1,
1) Medical College”Iordanka Filaretova”, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria,
2) Department of Occupational Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria,
3) Department of Oral and Image Diagnostic, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Purpose: Sensitization to methacrylic monomers is a significant problem in dental occupational exposures. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the dynamics in contact sensitization incidence to methacrylic monomers during the educational course of dental technician students.
Material and Methods: Skin patch testing with methyl methacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 4-tolyldiethanolamine, N,N-Dimethyl-4-toluidine, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate, formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde was performed among 150 dental technician students (38 – 1st, 40 – 2nd and 38 – 3rd year of education); 34 students without educational exposure to metals served as controls.. Chi square test and Fisher Exact Test were used in data analysis (p < 0.05).
Results: The incidence of sensitization to 4-tolyldiethanolamine in the group of dental technician students 2nd  and 3rd  year of education was significantly higher, if compared with those from the 1st  year, as well as with the control group (P=0.042). The sensitization rate to 4-tolyldiethanolamine was the highest recorded among all methacrylic monomers tested for the whole tested population. The incidence of positive patch tests to formaldehyde was the highest recorded for all defined groups. Higher were sensitization rates among dental technician students 2nd year of education vs. no cases in the control group.
Conclusions: Our data indicate high and increasing with the duration of educational exposure risk of contact sensitization to 4-tolyldiethanolamine among dental technician students, and this substance could be outlined as a sensitizer of prominent importance. No significant differences were established concerning the other tested methacrylic monomers. We accept the main role of consumer and environmental exposures for the manifestation of formaldehyde sensitization. Adequate preventive measures and information should be provided during the practical educational course of dental technician students. General population need to be well informed and the European Union regulations to be properly applied.

Keywords: contact sensitization, methacrylic monomers, dental technician students, educational exposure,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 507 KB/
Please cite this article as: Lyapina M, Kundurjiev T, Lyubomirova U, Stanev E, Savova Z. Contact sensitization to methacrylic monomers among dental technician students in relation to duration of educational exposure. J of IMAB. 2019 Apr-Jun;25(2):2526-2531. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019252.2526

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Maya Lyapina, MD., Medical College “I. Filaretova”, Medical University – Sofia; 3, “I. Filaretova” str., 1606 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: saly_grigory@abv.bg

1. Atai Z, Atai M. Side Effects and complications of dental materials on oral cavity. Am J Applied Sci. 2007;4(11):946–9.
2. Sasseville D. Acrylates in contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012 Jan-Feb;23(1):6-16. [PubMed] [Crossref]
3. Mikov I, Turkalj I, Jovanović M. Occupational contact allergic dermatitis in dentistry. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2011 Jun;68(6):523-5. [PubMed]
4. Gosavi SS, Gosavi SY, Alla R. Local and systemic effects of unpolymerised monomers. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2010;7(2):82–87.
5. Keyf FA, Keyf AI. Harmful effects of methylmethacrylate and formaldehyde from acrylic resin denture base materials. Saudi Dent J. 1998; 10(1):25-8.
6. Henriks-Eckerman ML, Suuronen K, Jolanki R, Alanko K. Methacrylates in dental restorative materials. Contact Dermatitis. 2004; 50(4):233–7.
7. Leggat PA, Kedjarune U. Toxicity of methyl methacrylate in dentistry. Int Dent J. 2003; 53(3):126–31.
8. Goon AT, Isaksson M, Zimerson E, Goh CL, Bruze M. Contact allergy to (meth) acrylates in the dental series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2006; 55(4):219-26.
9. Prasad Hunasehally RY, Hughes TM, Stone NM. Atypical pattern of (meth) acrylate allergic contact dermatitis in dental professionals. Br Dent J. 2012 Sep;213(5):223-4. [PubMed] [Crossref]
10. Tillberg A, Stenberg B, Berglund A. Reactions to resin-based dental materials in patients-type, time to onset, duration, and consequence of the reaction. Contact Dermatitis. 2009 Dec;61(6):313-9. [PubMed] [Crossref]
11. Van Landuyt KL, Nawrot T, Geebelen B, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Yoshihara K, et al. How much do resin-based dental materials release? A meta-analytical approach. Dent Mater. 2011 Aug;27(8):723-47. [PubMed] [Crossref
12. Aalto-Korte K, Alanko K, Kuuliala O, Jolanki R. Methacrylate and acrylate allergy in dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis. 2007 Nov;57(5):324-30. [PubMed] [Crossref]
13. Seiss M, Langer C, Hickel R, Reichl FX. Quantitative determination of TEGDMA, BHT, and DMABEE in eluates from polymerized resin-based dental restorative materials by use of GC/MS. Arch Toxicol. 2009;83(12):1109-15. [Crossref]
14. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Dentist's occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by coconut diethanolamide, N-ethyl-4-toluene sulfonamide and 4-tolyldiethanolamine. Acta Derm Venereol. 1993 Apr;73(2):126-9.
15. HSDB (2015). Dimethyl-p-toluidine. Hazardous Substances Data Bank [online database]. Bethesda (MD), USA: United States National Library of Medicine. [Internet]
16. Ravis SM, Shaffer MP, Shaffer CL, Dehkhaghani S, Belsito DV. Glutaraldehyde-induced and formaldehyde-induced allergic contact dermatitis among dental hygienists and assistants. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003; 134(8):1072–8. [Crossref]
17. Kiec-Swierczynska M. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis inLodz: 1990-1994. Occup Med (Lond).1996 Jun;46(3):205-208.
18. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. National Library of Medicine. [Internet]
19. Hauman CHJ, Love RM. Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: A review. Part 2, Root-canal-filling materials. Int Endod J. 2003;36:147–60. [Crossref]
20. Kopperud HM, Kleven IS, Wellendorf H. Identification and quantification of leachable substances from polymer-based orthodontic base-plate materials. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:26–31. [Crossref].

Received: 19 November 2018
Published online: 22 April 2019

back to Online Journal