Search

In dentistry, the dentist, the staff and the patients are increasingly confronted with the phenomenon of allergy and intolerance. These are common and their prevalence tends to increase because such diversity and multiplication of allergenic products that are handled. The allergens involved are unfortunately poorly documented. Among these allergens, latex is the most frequently reported in the literature and can cause allergic reactions with a prevalence ranging from 2.8% to 16.9% among health professionals. It would be responsible for skin and respiratory allergies increasingly common. It has become a concern for allergists hence the interest in defining allergens, triggering factors, pathogenicity and its different clinical expressions. Denture materials handled by the dentist and dental technician, especially acrylic and some impression materials, and metals (nickel, cobalt, chromium, gold) have also been incriminate in the occurrence of allergic reactions. Titanium, metal with biocompatible properties, has been studied extensively in recent years, showing its role in causing allergic reactions in some patients. Rarely, antiseptics used preoperatively as well as some disinfectants have been reported as being responsible for intolerance or contact sensitization. Finally, local anesthetics were often wrongly referred to as allergens. Allergic reactions can be trivial to type of mucosal erythema in patients, type of urticaria or eczema in the practitioner and his staff but may have other clinical forms such as angioedema for latex or unexplained implant failures. The difficulty lies in establishing the etiologic diagnosis in the occurrence of allergic accidents. The medical history has its importance and the close collaboration between the dentist and the allergist to identify patients at risk but also to implement all the means of prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Medical Mycology / Journal de Mycologie Médicale is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective To examine the effect of a new point-of-use treatment for drinking-water, a commercially developed flocculant-disinfectant, on the prevalence of diarrhoea in children. Method We conducted a randomized controlled trial among 514 rural Guatemalan households, divided into 42 neighbourhood clusters, for 13 weeks, from 4 November 2002 through 31 January 2003. Clusters assigned to water treatment with the flocculant-disinfectant were compared with those using their usual water-handling practices. The longitudinal prevalence of diarrhoea was calculated as the proportion of total days with diarrhoea divided by the total number of days of observation. The prevalence of diarrhoea was compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Findings the 1702 people in households receiving the disinfectant had a prevalence of diarrhoea that was 40% lower than that among the 1699 people using standard water-handling practices (0.9% versus 1.5%; P = 0.001). In households using the flocculant-disinfectant, children < 1 years of age had a 39% lower prevalence of diarrhoea than those in households using their standard practices (3.7% versus 6.0%; p=0.005). Conclusion In setting where families rarely treat drinking-water, we introduced a novel flocculant-disinfectant that reduced the longitudinal prevalence of diarrhoea, especially among children aged < 1 yeas, among whom diarrhoea has been strongly associated with mortality. Successful introduction and use of this product could contribute to preventing diarrhoeal disease globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]