Ethical and Legal Considerations in Biometric Data Usage-Bulgarian Perspective.

Ethical and legal considerations with regards to biometric data usage are directly related to the right to protection of personal data, which is part of the rights protected under the European Convention of human rights. Specific protection is required to the process and use of sensitive data which reveals certain personal characteristic and is related to the health status of individuals. Biometric data and information on individual upon which people could be identified based on specifics and distinguishing signs. Bulgaria, as a country progressing in terms of integration of digital technologies and as a European Union member state has adopted international and universal legal instruments related on the procession and use of digital data and data protection. On legislative and ethical grounds, it has been established the particular importance of not violating human rights and individual freedoms when processing and using personal data. It has been noted that the processing of special categories of personal data may be necessary for reasons of public interest in the field of public health and that is why under such circumstances it has been permitted the procession to be carried on without the consent of the data subject. Lack of transparency and lawfulness of the processing of personal data could lead to physical, tangible, or intangible damages where processing could lead to discrimination, identity theft, or identity fraud as a result of which may be significant adverse economic or social consequences. Increasingly, widespread use of biometrics in the implementation of medical activities requires the application of a new approach in terms of awareness regarding existing risks to the rights, ethics, and freedoms of all of us, as a user of medical service.

Pilot study of contact sensitization to rubber allergens and bisphenol A amongst dental students.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study has been to evaluate the rate of contact sensitization to some rubber allergens and to bisphenol A (BPA) amongst students of dental medicine and dental patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 50 participants were included in the study: 40 students of dental medicine exposed to the studied rubber allergens and BPA-based dental materials during the course of their education; 10 dental patients without occupational exposure to the latter substances served as a control group. All of them were patch-tested with the studied rubber allergens and bisphenol A. RESULTS: Highest was the sensitizing action of carba mix, followed by benzoyl peroxide and mercapto mix. The sensitization rate for carba mix was significantly higher for dental students as well as for the whole studied population, if compared to the one for thiuram mix (Chi2 = 12.9, p < 0.001; Chi2 = 13.9, p < 0.001), bisphenol A (Chi2 = 8.9, p < 0.001; Chi2 = 11.9, p < 0.001), toluenesulfonamide formaldehyde resin (Chi2 = 10.7, p < 0.001; Chi2 = 13.9, p < 0.001) and benzoyl peroxide (Chi2 = 4.7, p = 0.03; Chi2 = 5.8, p = 0.016), and for dental patients, if compared to the one for mercapto mix (Chi2 = 7.07, p = 0.008). Concomitant positive skin patch-test reactions to carba mix and to benzoyl peroxide, and to all the studied allergens were established. CONCLUSIONS: Carba mix could be outlined as a sensitizer of paramount importance for dental students as well as for dental patients. Benzoyl peroxide was the second ranked sensitizer for dental students. Positive skin patch-test reactions to bisphenol A and toluenesulfonamide formaldehyde resin were established only among the group of dental students. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2017;30(3):397-405.

Concomitant sensitization to glutaraldehyde and methacrylic monomers among dentists and their patients.

BACKGROUND: A multitude of methacrylic monomers is used in dentistry. Glutaraldehyde (G) is used in dental practice and consumer products as a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the frequency and the risk of concomitant sensitization to some methacrylic monomers (methyl methacrylate (MMA), triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), 2,2-bis-[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacrylo-xypropoxy)phenyl]-propane (Bis-GMA), 2-hydroxy-ethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate (THFMA)) and glutaraldehyde in students of dentistry, students from the dental technician school, dental professionals and dental patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 262 participants were included in the study: students of dentistry, students from the dental technician school, dental professionals, and dental patients as a control group. All were patch-tested with methacrylic monomers and glutaraldehyde. The results were subject to the statistical analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Among the group of dental students, the highest frequency of concomitant sensitization was to TEGDMA and G (15.5%). In the group of patients the highest frequency of concomitant sensitization was to EGDMA and G (16.4%). The frequency of concomitant sensitization among dental professionals was much lower, with the highest rate to TEGDMA and G (7.7%), too. We consider the students from the dental technician school, where the exposure to glutaraldehyde is less likely, to be the group at a lesser risk of concomitant sensitization. CONCLUSIONS: Dental students and dental patients could be outlined as groups at the risk of concomitant sensitization to glutaraldehyde and methacrylic monomers. For dental professionals, we assumed an increased risk for concomitant sensitization to TEGDMA and aldehydes that are commonly used in dentistry. We consider the students from the dental technician school to be the group at a lesser risk of concomitant sensitization to glutaraldehyde and methacrylic monomers. Med Pr 2016;67(3):311-320.