Palazzolo JF, Russo JP, Maradeo MR

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 16
Paginas: 151-156
Archivo PDF: 298.67 Kb.

RESUMEN

Los metacrilatos son monómeros de bajo peso molecular (haptenos) que se utilizan en polímeros o plásticos de amplia demanda en nuestra vida diaria. Una vez curados o polimerizados, no suelen ser sensibilizantes, aunque los adhesivos, ampliamente manipulados por odontólogos, protesistas, médicos traumatólogos, y sobre todo, las técnicas y usuarias de estética ungueal, en su estado líquido o semilíquido son altamente peligrosos. El riesgo no abarca sólo las uñas esculpidas, en la actualidad incluyen geles y lacas ungueales de larga duración que al poder adquirirse libremente en el mercado están al alcance de miles de usuarios, creando una potencial epidemia de casos de dermatitis por contacto. Se presentan dos casos de dermatitis por contacto ocupacional a metacrilatos.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Ramos L, Cabral R, Gonçalo M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylates and methacrylates - a 7-year study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014; 71 (2): 102-107.

2. Spencer A, Gazzani P, Thompson DA. Acrylate and methacrylate contact allergy and allergic contact disease: a 13-year review. Contact Dermatitis. 2016; 75 (3): 157-164.

3. Christoffers WA, Coenraads PJ, Schuttelaar MLA. Two decades of occupational (meth)acrylate patch test results and focus on isobornyl acrylate. Contact Dermatitis. 2013; 69 (2): 86-92.

4. Muttardi K, White IR, Banerjee P. The burden of allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylates: 3-year study of acrylate allergy in a regional patch test centre. Contact Dermatitis. 2016; 75 (3): 180-184.

5. Kanerva L. Cross-reactions of multifunctional methacrylates and acrylates. Acta Odontol Scand. 2001; 59 (5): 320-329.

6. Rustemeyer T, Groot J, von Blomberg E, Frosch P, Scheper R. Cross-reactivity patterns of contact-sensitizing methacrylates. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1998; 148: 83-90.

7. Dahlin J, Berne B, Dunér K, Hosseiny S, Matura M, Nyman G et al. Several cases of undesirable effects caused by methacrylate ultraviolet-curing nail polish for non-professional use: undesirable effects caused by uv-curing nail polish. Contact Dermatitis. 2016; 75 (3): 151-156.

8. Teik-Jin Goon A, Bruze M, Zimerson E, Goh CL, Isaksson M. Contact allergy to acrylates/methacrylates in the acrylate and nail acrylics series in southern Sweden: simultaneous positive patch test reaction patterns and possible screening allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2007; 57 (1): 21-27.

9. Constandt L, Hecke EV, Naeyaert JM, Goossens A. Screening for contact allergy to artificial nails. Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 52 (2): 73-77.

10. Roche E, De la Cuadra J, Alegre V. Sensitization to acrylates caused by artificial acrylic nails: review of 15 cases. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas Engl Ed. 2008; 99 (10): 788-794.

11. Uter W, Geier J. Contact allergy to acrylates and methacrylates in consumers and nail artists - data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology, 2004-2013: nail (meth)acrylate allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2015; 72 (4): 224-228.

12. Aalto-Korte K, Henriks-Eckerman ML, Kuuliala O, Jolanki R. Occupational methacrylate and acrylate allergy-cross-reactions and possible screening allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2010; 63 (6): 301-312.

13. Aalto-Korte K, Alanko K, Kuuliala O, Jolanki R. Methacrylate and acrylate allergy in dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis. 2007; 57 (5): 324-330.

14. Wrangsjö K, Swartling C, Meding B. Occupational dermatitis in dental personnel: contact dermatitis with special reference to (meth) acrylates in 174 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2001; 45 (3): 158-163.

15. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T. 10 years of patch testing with the (meth)acrylate series. Contact Dermatitis. 1997; 37 (6): 255-258.

16. Ursberg AM, Bergendorff O, Thorsson AC, Isaksson M. Is there a good in vivo method to show whether gloves are sufficiently protective when a nail technician is exposed to (meth)acrylates? An in vivo pilot study: in vivo protection method for gloves. Contact Dermatitis. 2016; 75 (1): 62–65.