RESUMEN
Contact sensitivity to cosmetics is common, but the sensitizing chemicals vary between countries and study periods. The present survey aimed at revealing the recent trends in patch test sensitivity with cosmetic chemicals in Finland. We report a retrospective multicentre survey of patch test reactions focusing on cosmetic-related substances and comparing the test results in 1995-97 with those in 2000-02. The most striking increases in the frequency of the patch test sensitivity were found with balsam of Peru and propolis from 4.0% to 6.2% (P < 0.001) and from 0.5% to 1.4% (P < 0.001), respectively, whereas the most prominent decreases were found with methylchloro/methylisothiazolinone and chlorhexidine diglugonate from 2.4% to 1.3% (P < 0.001) and from 1.2% to 0.5% (P < 0.001), respectively. The level of patch test sensitivity to methyldibromo glutaronitrile increased, although not significantly, from 1.0% to 1.5%. An increasing tendency was also found with hair dye chemicals 4-aminophenol and toluene-2,5-diamine or toluene-2,5-diamine sulfate from 1.3% to 3.8% and from 1.4% to 5.2%, respectively, while such a tendency was not found among permanent wave chemicals. The sensitivity level of fragrance mix remained the same (6% - 7%). We conclude that surveys revealing the state of sensitivity to cosmetic chemicals should be performed periodically in different countries.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/efectos adversos , Cosméticos/efectos adversos , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/diagnóstico , Pruebas del Parche/métodos , Desodorantes/efectos adversos , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/etiología , Femenino , Finlandia , Preparaciones para el Cabello/efectos adversos , Educación en Salud/métodos , Humanos , Masculino , Pruebas del Parche/normas , Perfumes/efectos adversos , Extractos Vegetales/efectos adversos , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Própolis/efectos adversos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Dental products contain many allergens, and may cause problems both for patients undergoing dental treatment and for dental personnel because of occupational exposure. Individual patch test clinics may not study sufficient numbers of patients to collect reliable data on uncommon allergens. OBJECTIVE: To collect information on dental allergens based on a multicenter study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Finnish Contact Dermatitis Group tested more than 4,000 patients (for most allergens, 2,300 to 2,600 patients) with dental screening series. Conventional patch testing was performed. The total number and percentage of irritant (scored as irritant [IR] or doubtful [?]) and allergic (scored as +, ++, or +++) patch test reactions, respectively, were calculated, as well as the highest and lowest percentage of allergic patch test reactions recorded by the different patch test clinics. A reaction index (RI) was calculated, giving information on the irritancy of the patch test substances. RESULTS: The most frequent allergic patch test reactions were caused by nickel (14.6%), ammoniated mercury (13%), mercury (10.3%), gold (7.7%), benzoic acid (4.3%), palladium (4.2%) and cobalt (4.1%). 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.8%) provoked most of the reactions caused by (meth)acrylates. Menthol, peppermint oil, ammonium tetrachloroplatinate, and amalgam alloying metals provoked no (neither allergic nor irritant) patch test reactions. CONCLUSION: Patch testing with allergens in the dental screening series, including (meth)acrylates and mercury, needs to be performed to detect contact allergy to dental products.