Search

Background Concerns regarding contact allergies and intolerance reactions to dental materials are widespread among patients. Development of novel dental materials and less frequent amalgam use may alter sensitization profiles in patients with possible contact allergy. Objectives To analyse current sensitization patterns to dental materials in patients with suspected contact allergy. Methods This retrospective, multicentre analysis from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) selected participants from 169 834 people tested in 2005–2019 and registered with (i) an affected area of 'mouth' (and 'lips'/'perioral'), (ii) with the dental material in question belonging to one of three groups (dental filling materials, oral implants or dentures or equivalents) and (iii) with patch-testing done in parallel with the German baseline series, (dental) metal series and dental technician series. Results A total of 2730 of 169 834 tested patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients were predominantly women (81.2%) aged ≥ 40 years (92.8%). The sensitization rates with confirmed allergic contact stomatitis in women (n = 444) were highest for metals (nickel 28.6%, palladium 21.4%, amalgam 10.9%), (meth)acrylates [2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) 4.8%] and the substances propolis (6.8%) and 'balsam of Peru' (11.4%). The most relevant acrylates were HEMA, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and pentaerythritol triacrylate. Few men were diagnosed with allergic contact stomatitis (n = 68); sensitization rates in men were highest for propolis (14.9%) and amalgam (13.6%). Conclusions Allergic contact stomatitis to dental materials is rare. Patch testing should not only focus on metals such as nickel, palladium, amalgam and gold, but also (meth)acrylates and the natural substances propolis and 'balsam of Peru'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: EU Commission Regulation 2017/1410 prohibits using atranol and chloroatranol, the main allergens in Evernia prunastri (oakmoss), and hydroxyisohexyl 3‐cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) in cosmetic products. Oakmoss absolute is contained in fragrance mix (FM) I and HICC in FM II which are patch tested as screening mixtures in the baseline series. Objective: To describe the time trends of reaction frequencies to both FMs as well as to their components in FM‐positive patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2012–2021. Results: Positive reactions to FM I (FM II) declined from 9.1% (4.7%) in 2012 to 4.6% (3.0%) in 2021. Full breakdown tests were performed in 24% (FM I) and 31% (FM II), respectively, of the mix‐positive patients. From this data, frequencies of sensitization to the 14 single fragrances of FM I and FM II were calculated. For the majority, a decline was noted from 2012/2013 to 2020/2021, for oakmoss absolute 1.9%–0.8% and for HICC 1.8%–0.9%. Conclusion: EU Commission Regulation 2017/1410 was an effective measure. However, our data have some limitations, possibly causing underestimation of sensitization frequencies to fragrances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hair cosmetic products contain several, partly potent contact allergens, including excipients like preservatives. Hand dermatitis in hairdressers is common, scalp and face dermatitis in clients or self‐users (summarised here as 'consumers') may be severe. Objective: To compare frequencies of sensitization to hair cosmetic ingredients and other selected allergens between female patch tested patients working as hairdressers and consumers without professional background, respectively, who were tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis to such products. Methods: Patch test and clinical data collected by the IVDK (https://www.ivdk.org) between 01/2013 and 12/2020 were descriptively analysed, focusing on age‐adjusted sensitization prevalences in the two subgroups. Results: Amongst the 920 hairdressers (median age: 28 years, 84% hand dermatitis) and 2321 consumers (median age: 49 years, 71.8% head/face dermatitis), sensitization to p‐phenylenediamine (age‐standardised prevalence: 19.7% and 31.6%, respectively) and toluene‐2,5‐diamine (20 and 30.8%) were most common. Contact allergy to other oxidative hair dye ingredients was also more commonly diagnosed in consumers, whereas ammonium persulphate (14.4% vs. 2.3%) and glyceryl thioglycolate (3.9 vs. 1.2%) as well as most notably methylisothiazolinone (10.5% vs. 3.1%) were more frequent allergens in hairdressers. Conclusions: Hair dyes were the most frequent sensitizers both in hairdressers and in consumers; however, as indication for patch testing may differ, prevalences cannot directly be compared. The importance of hair dye allergy is evident, often with marked coupled reactivity. Workplace and product safety need to be further improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hydroperoxides of limonene (Lim‐OOHs) and linalool (Lin‐OOHs) are potent contact sensitizers. Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of positive patch test (PT) reactions to Lim‐OOHs and Lin‐OOHs in consecutive patients, their demographic factors and concomitant reactions. Methods: Between 7/2018 and 12/2020, Lim‐OOHs 0.3% pet. and Lin‐OOHs 1% pet. were patch tested in 5511 consecutive patients. We assessed PT reactivity and analysed data from patients with either positive or negative PTs to Lim‐OOHs and Lin‐OOHs. Results: Positive PT results to Lim‐OOHs (n = 170, 3.1%) and Lin‐OOHs (n = 483, 8.8%) were frequent. Most of the positive reactions were weak (LimOOHs n = 134/LinOOHs n = 429), and even more frequently, doubtful (n = 252/n = 578) or irritant reactions (n = 81/n = 178) were documented. PT reactivity to Lim‐OOHs and Lin‐OOHs was increased in patients with irritant reactions to sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS). The proportion of leg dermatitis and concomitant positive reactions to fragrances and essential oils was increased in patients with reactivity to these hydroperoxides. Conclusion: The observed reaction pattern suggests that both test preparations display an irritant potential with an increased risk of false positive reactions. Preparations should be chemically monitored in order to reduce irritancy. Mindful interpretation of PT results and aimed patch testing of lower concentrations is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]