Dental personnel are at risk of developing occupational contact dermatitis.
Objectives
The aims of the study were to determine prevalence of occupational contact dermatitis in dental personnel referred for patch testing and to characterize relevant allergens and sources.
Methods
The study used a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data, 2001–2018.
Results
Of 41,109 patients, 585 (1.4%) were dental personnel. Dental personnel were significantly more likely than nondental personnel to be female (75.7% vs 67.4%, P < 0.0001), have occupationally related dermatitis (35.7% vs 11.5%, P < 0.0001), and/or have primary hand involvement (48.6% vs 22.5%, P < 0.0001). More than one quarter of dental personnel (62/585, 27.7%) had 1 or more occupationally related allergic patch test reaction(s). There were 249 occupationally related reactions to NACDG screening allergens, most commonly glutaraldehyde (18.1%), thiuram mix (16.1%), and carba mix (14.1%). The most common sources of NACDG screening allergens were gloves (30.7%), dental materials (26.6%), and sterilizing solutions (13.1%). Seventy-three dental personnel (12.5%) had 1 or more positive patch test reactions to occupationally related allergen(s)/substances not on the screening series. Occupationally related irritant contact dermatitis was identified in 22.2% (n = 130) of dental personnel, most commonly to nonskin soaps/detergents/disinfectants (32.0%).
Conclusions
Occupational contact dermatitis is common in dental personnel referred for patch testing. Comprehensive testing beyond screening series is important in these patients.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KanervaL, LahtinenA, ToikkanenJ, et al.Increase in occupational skin diseases of dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis, 1999; 40(2):104–108.
2.
Lugovic-MihicL, FercekI, DuvancicT, et al.Occupational contact dermatitis amongst dentists and dental technicians. Acta Clin Croat, 2016; 55(2):293–300.
HeratizadehA, WerfelT, SchubertS, et al.Contact sensitization in dental technicians with occupational contact dermatitis. Data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) 2001–2015. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 78(4):266–273.
5.
WallenhammarLM, OrtengrenU, AndreassonH, et al.Contact allergy and hand eczema in Swedish dentists. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43(4):192–199.
6.
WrangsjoK, SwartlingC, MedingB. Occupational dermatitis in dental personnel: contact dermatitis with special reference to (meth)acrylates in 174 patients. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45(3):158–163.
7.
AlankoK, SusitaivalP, JolankiR, et al.Occupational skin diseases among dental nurses. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 50:77–82.
8.
RustemeyerT, FroschPJ. Occupational skin diseases in dental laboratory technicians. (I). Clinical picture and causative factors. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34(2):125–133.
9.
HillJG, GrimwoodRE, HermeschCB, et al.Prevalence of occupationally related hand dermatitis in dental workers. J Am Dent Assoc, 1998; 129(2):212–217.
10.
LeeJY, YooJM, ChoBK, et al.Contact dermatitis in Korean dental technicians. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45(1):13–16.
11.
UvegesRE, GrimwoodRE, SlawskyLD, et al.Epidemiology of hand dermatitis in dental personnel. Mil Med, 1995; 160(7):335–338.
12.
DeKovenJG, DeKovenBM, WarshawEM, et al.Occupational contact dermatitis: retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001 to 2016. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2021; S0190-9622(21):591.
13.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(1):33–46.
14.
DeKovenJG, WarshawEM, ZugKA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2015–2016. Dermatitis, 2018; 29(6):297–309.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor force statistics from the current population survey 2021. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm. Accessed April23, 2021.
MckayJC, QuinonezCR. The feminization of dentistry: implications for the profession. J Can Dent Assoc, 2012; 78:c1.
19.
KurpiewskaJ, LiwkowiczJ, BenczekK, et al.A survey of work-related skin diseases in different occupations in Poland. Int J Occup Saf Ergon, 2001; 17(2):207–214.
20.
KanervaL, EstlanderT, JolankiR. Occupational skin allergy in the dental profession. Dermatol Clin, 1994; 12(3):517–532.
21.
De GrootAC. Monographs in Contact Allergy: Non-Fragrance Allergens in Cosmetics (Parts 1). FL: CRC Press; 2018:519.
KadivarS, BelsitoDV. Occupational dermatitis in health care workers evaluated for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis, 2015; 26(4):177–183.
24.
SunejaT, BelsitoDV. Occupational dermatoses in health care workers evaluated for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58(5):285–290.
25.
ShafferMP, BelsitoDV. Allergic contact dermatitis from glutaraldehyde in health-care workers. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43(3):150–156.
26.
RavisSM, ShafferMP, ShafferCL, et al.Glutaraldehyde-induced and formaldehyde-induced allergic contact dermatitis among dental hygienists and assistants. J Am Dent Assoc, 2003; 134(8):1072–1078.
27.
Kiec-SwierczynskaM, KreciszB, KrysiakB, et al.Occupational allergy to aldehydes in health care workers. Clinical observations. Experiments. Int J Occup Med Environ Health, 1998; 11(4):349–358.
28.
BurkeFJ, WilsonNH. Non-sterile glove use: a review. Am J Dent, 1989; 2(5):255–261.
29.
SawyerJ, BennettA. Comparing the level of dexterity offered by latex and nitrile SafeSkin gloves. Ann Occup Hyg, 2006; 50(3):289–296.
30.
DoughertyHL. Allergy to rubber (an increasing dental practice problem). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1993; 104(2):23A–24A.
31.
WarshawEM, GuptaR, SilverbergJI, et al.Positive patch test reactions to carba mix and thiuram mix: the North American Contact Dermatitis Group experience (1994–2016). Dermatitis, 2021; 32:173–184. doi: .
32.
CaoLY, TaylorJS, SoodA, et al.Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves: changing trends in patch test reactions to accelerators. Arch Dermatol, 2010; 146(9):1001–1007.
33.
TaylorJS, PraditsuwanP. Latex allergy. Review of 44 cases including outcome and frequent association with allergic hand eczema. Arch Dermatol, 1996; 132(3):265–271.
34.
OlsenRJ, LynchP, CoyleMB, et al.Examination gloves as barriers to hand contamination in clinical practice. JAMA, 1993; 270(3):350–353.
35.
GoodierMC, RonkainenSD, HylwaSA. Rubber accelerators in medical examination and surgical gloves. Dermatitis. 2018; 29(2):66–76.
36.
CrepyMN. Rubber: new allergens and preventive measures. Eur J Dermatol, 2016; 26(6):523–530.
PillsburyME, RonkainenS, GoodierM, et al.Are rubber gloves marketed as accelerator-free truly free of accelerators?. Dermatitis. 2020; 31(2):128–133.
39.
KanervaL, EstlanderT, JolankiR, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by exposure to acrylates during work with dental prostheses. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28(5):268–275.
40.
MoseKF, AndersenKE, ChristensenLP. Stability of selected volatile contact allergens in different patch test chambers under different storage conditions. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 66(4):172–179.
41.
LonnrothEC, WellendorfH, RuyterE. Permeability of different types of medical protective gloves to acrylic monomers. Eur J Oral Sci, 2003; 111(5):440–446.
42.
SchultzJC, ConnellyE, GlesneL, et al.Cutaneous and oral eruption from oral exposure to nickel in dental braces. Dermatitis. 2004; 15(3):154–157.
43.
VolkmanKK, IndaMJ, ReichlPG, et al.Adverse reactions to orthodontic appliances in nickel-allergic patients. Allergy Asthma Proc, 2007; 28(4):480–484.
44.
KettelarijJAB, LidenC, AxenE, et al.Cobalt, nickel and chromium release from dental tools and alloys. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70(1):3–10.
KanervaL, RantanenT, Aalto-KorteK, et al.A multicenter study of patch test reactions with dental screening series. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12(2):83–87.
47.
McParlandH, WarnakulasuriyaS. Oral lichenoid contact lesions to mercury and dental amalgam—a review. J Biomed Biotechnol, 2012; 2012:589569.
48.
KanervaL, KomulainenM, EstlanderT, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from mercury. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28(1):26–28.
49.
Adams RM3rd ed. Job descriptions with their irritants and allergens. In: Occupational Skin Disease. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company; 1999:662–664.
50.
YousefiH. Replacing dental amalgam by mercury-free restorative materials; it's time to take action. Daru, 2018; 26(1):1–3.
51.
MupparapuM, KothariKRM. Review of surface disinfection protocols in dentistry: a 2019 update. Quintessence Int, 2019; 50(1):58–65.
52.
Aalto-KorteK, MakelaEA, HuttunenM, et al.Occupational contact allergy to glyoxal. Contact Dermatitis, 2005; 52(5):276–281.
53.
HamannCP, DepaolaLG, RodgersPA. Occupation-related allergies in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc, 2005; 136(4):500–510.
RideoutK, TeschkeK, Dimich-WardH, et al.Considering risks to healthcare workers from glutaraldehyde alternatives in high-level disinfection. J Hosp Infect, 2005; 59(1):4–11.
