Contact dermatitis caused by 2-HEMA and GM dentin primer solutions applied to guinea pigs and humans.

The purposes of this study were to examine whether 2-HEMA, GM, and methacrylic acid cause contact dermatitis, and to determine the optimum concentrations of these primers for sensitization and challenge in guinea pigs. A sensitizing concentration of 0.2% 2-HEMA resulted in strong rubefaction and several vesiculopapules in response to the challenge, and a sensitizing concentration of 0.5% GM produced strong rubefaction at 24 hours. We also observed the development of contact dermatitis on human brachia in a closed-patch test. Skin that was treated with both 2-HEMA and GM clearly showed the onset of rubefaction and itchiness. 2-HEMA caused sensitized delayed allergic reactions at all the concentrations tested.

[1]  H. Hisamitsu,et al.  A delayed hypersensitivity reaction to dentine primer in the guinea-pig. , 1995, Journal of dentistry.

[2]  H. Hisamitsu,et al.  Possibility of allergic reaction to dentin primer--application on the skin of guinea pigs. , 1992, Dental materials journal.

[3]  K. Itoh,et al.  Bonding Efficacy of Erythritol Methacrylate Solutions as Dentin Primers , 1991, Journal of dental research.

[4]  T. Tachikawa,et al.  Morphological Changes in Rat Skin Resulting from the Application of Dentin Primer , 1991 .

[5]  T. Tachikawa,et al.  Morphological changes of rabbit skin by application of dentin primer. , 1990, Dental materials journal.

[6]  T. Hayakawa,et al.  Efficacy of glyceryl methacrylate as a dentin primer. , 1989, Dental materials journal.

[7]  T. Estlander,et al.  Allergic contact dermatitis from dental composite resins due to aromatic epoxy acrylates and aliphatic acrylates. , 1989, Contact dermatitis.

[8]  K. Itoh,et al.  Momentary pretreatment by 35% HEMA solution combined with five marketed bonding agents. , 1987, Dental materials journal.

[9]  S. Clemmensen.  Sensitizing potential of 2‐hydroxyethylmethacrylate , 1985, Contact dermatitis.

[10]  K. Itoh.  Effect of GLUMA concentration on adhesion to dentin , 1985 .

[11]  T. Estlander,et al.  Hand dermatitis in dental technicians , 1984, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  K. Malten,et al.  Permeability of surgeons' gloves to methyl methacrylate. , 1983, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[13]  H. Walle,et al.  Sensitizing potential of 14 mono (meth) acrylates in the guinea pig * , 1982 .

[14]  H. Walle,et al.  Sensitizing potential of 12di(meth)acrylates in the guinea pig * , 1982, Contact dermatitis.

[15]  K. Malten,et al.  2‐Hydroxy‐ ethyl‐methacrylate and di and tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate: Contact sensitizers in a photoprepolymer printing plate procedure , 1979, Contact dermatitis.

[16]  D. Nathanson,et al.  Delayed extraoral hypersensitivity to dental composite material. , 1979, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[17]  H. Maibach,et al.  Contact dermatitis and gastrointestinal symptoms from hydroxyethylmethacrylate , 1979, The British journal of dermatology.

[18]  W. Jordan.  Cross‐sensitization patterns in acrylate allergies , 1975, Contact dermatitis.

[19]  W. Mitchell Sams,et al.  Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Guinea Pig , 1971 .

[20]  J. Pegum,et al.  Contact Dermatitis from Penetration of Rubber Gloves by Acrylic Monomer , 1971, British medical journal.

[21]  K. Ito,et al.  Patch test. , 1967, Bulletin of Pharmaceutical Research Institute.

[22]  A. Fisher.  Allergic sensitization of the skin and oral mucosa to acrylic denture materials. , 1954, Journal of the American Medical Association.