Contact allergy to 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate in Denmark

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyl cyanoacrylate contained in cosmetic glues among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications: A systematic review

“…Another eight references were found by manually searching references (ie, backward and forward snowballing). A number of studies appeared to meet the inclusion criteria at first, [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] but they had to be omitted because they focused on a population that was inappropriate for this review. Case reports [38][39][40][41] and case series [42][43][44][45][46][47] were not included in the actual review, but compiled and extracted as supplemental information in case they were relevant in terms of including hairdressers and beauticians.…”

Methacrylate perspective in current dental practice

“…Studies overall present that dental personnel dermatological methacrylate sensitivity is increasing, ranging from earlier reports reporting a prevalence of 10%, 31,70 with other studies reporting 14%, 69 20%, 27 22%, 46 and between 26% and 32% 16 . These studies imply that methacrylate‐related skin diseases are demonstrating an increasing trend with HEMA now becoming the prevalent sensitizer 4,5,18,27,43,44,70‐72 …”

“…Johansen and Werfel 4 in 2019 also noted a rising prevalence in HEMA sensitivity, which was reinforced by a 2020 study by Havmose et al 72 who found HEMA was the primary allergen in 92% of artificial nail workers with occupational related skin disease. The authors expressed concern with growing HEMA sensitivity and recommended primary preventive measures to reduce exposure 72 . A 2020 review by Uter et al 68 also noted a upward HEMA sensitivity trend that was chiefly caused by the artificial nail industry.…”

“…In 2018 Heratizadeh et al 44 reported the results of a 14‐year retrospective study of dental technicians and found that the most common sensitizers were found to be HEMA, 2‐hydroxypropyl methacrylate, MMA, ethyl methacrylate, and EGDM 44 . Johansen and Werfel 4 in 2019 also noted a rising prevalence in HEMA sensitivity, which was reinforced by a 2020 study by Havmose et al 72 who found HEMA was the primary allergen in 92% of artificial nail workers with occupational related skin disease. The authors expressed concern with growing HEMA sensitivity and recommended primary preventive measures to reduce exposure 72 .…”

“…Monitored exposures during actual clinical treatment to volatile methacrylates have revealed that dental personnel usually have low short‐term exposure to volatile methacrylates that are below established limits 37,73 . However, reports of methacrylate‐involved respiratory complications have been increasingly reported 32‐34,37,38,45,47,72‐74 which may identify that the respiratory system may be a toxicologically significant target 75 . The methacrylate reactive vinyl group has been thought to be responsible for respiratory sensitization, 73 as the vinyl group may have the ability to react with a protein amino acid amine group in the lung epithelial lining with the resultant hapten‐protein conjugate may then trigger an immune response 73 .…”