Dermal absorption and skin damage following hydrofluoric acid exposure in an ex vivo human skin model

Dennerlein, Kathrin; Kiesewetter, F.; Kilo, Sonja; Jäger, Thomas; Göen, Thomas; Korinth, Gintautas; Drexler, Hans

doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.02.015

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The scientific community has been searching another option to promote topographic changes on glass ceramic surfaces owing to HF acid toxicity (10). According to Carpena and Ballarin (16), the use of HF acid by clinicians is banned in some countries, and the dental laboratory is responsible for applying HF acid as per the ceramic manufacturer's instructions (17).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Carpena and Ballarin (16), the use of HF acid by clinicians is banned in some countries, and the dental laboratory is responsible for applying HF acid as per the ceramic manufacturer's instructions (17). Besides, a recent ex vivo study showed its hazardous potential, even with concentrations of <3% HF acid (10). In this sense, some studies have tested different ceramic surface treatments as alternative ones to HF acid, however, these alternative surface treatments were not preferable to HF etching associated with silane application (17), or were poorly supported by the literature, thus requiring more studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Epithelial necrosis was observed in rat skin 24 h after HF exposure (9). In addition, skin damage showed a strong extension into deeper skin layers with increasing HF concentration and exposure duration (10).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Adhesion to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Etched with Hydrofluoric Acid at Distinct Concentrations

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effect of different hydrofluoric acid (HF) concentrations on the bond strength between a lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic and a resin cement. Eighty ceramic-blocks (12×7×2 mm) of IPS e.Max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent) were produced and randomly assigned to 8 groups, considering 2 study factors: HF concentration in 4 levels, i.e., 1% (HF1), 3% (HF3), 5% (HF5), and 10% (HF10), and storage in 2 levels, i.e., baseline (tests were performed 24 h after cementation), and aged (storage for 150 days + 12,000 thermal-cycles at 5°C and 55°C). Acid etching (20 s) was performed, followed by washing, drying, and silanization. Four resin cement cylinders (ϕ= 0.96 mm) were built-up from starch matrices on each ceramic sample (n= 40). Additional ceramic samples were etched and analyzed for contact angle, micro-morphology, and roughness. In baseline condition (without aging), the HF3, HF5, and HF10 groups showed similar bond strength values (13.9 - 15.9 MPa), and HF1 (11.2 MPa) presented lower values than HF5, being that statistically different (p= 0.012). After aging, all the mean bond strengths statistically decreased, being that HF3, HF5, and HF10 (7.8 - 11 MPa) were similar and higher than HF1 (1.8 MPa) (p= 0.0001). For contact angle, HF3, HF5, and HF10 presented similar values (7.8 - 10.4°), lower than HF1 and CTRL groups. HF5 and HF10 presented rougher surfaces than other conditions. For better bond strength results, the tested ceramic may be etched by HF acid in concentrations of 3%, 5%, and 10%.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adhesion to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Etched with Hydrofluoric Acid at Distinct Concentrations

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, epidermal alterations can be detected after 3 min exposure to only 5% HF. Severe damage including coagulation necrosis of deeper dermal layers is provoked by HF concentration of ≥ 30%, with a considerable intradermal accumulation of 13-67% of total absorbed fluoride [ 47 ]. When exposed to 70% HF for only 20 sec, cellular alteration in four to five epidermal layers is noted by 1 min after the exposure.…”

Section: Corrosiveness and Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrofluoric Acid: Burns and Systemic Toxicity, Protective Measures, Immediate and Hospital Medical Treatment

Valjakova

Korunoska-Stevkovska

Georgieva

et al. 2018

Open Access Maced J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Hydrofluoric acid is a commonly used chemical in many industrial branches, but it can also be found as an ingredient in household products such as cleaning agents. Possessing high corrosive potential, HF acid causes burns and tissue necrosis, while when absorbed and distributed through the bloodstream, its extremely high toxic potential is expressed. Acute symptoms are often followed by pain, particularly in the case of skin burns, which intensiveness does not often correlate with the expressiveness of the clinical findings. Even exposure to low-concentrated solutions or gasses, or low-doses of high-concentrated acid, may provoke delayed systemic disorder which may eventually have a lethal outcome.AIM:Therefore, having information regarding the possible hazardous effects of hydrofluoric acid usage, a variety of symptoms, as well as a treatment approach, is of great importance in the case of HF exposure.METHODS:Available scientific articles published in literature databases, scientific reports and governmental recommendations from the internet websites, written in English, using the following search terms “Hydrofluoric acid, skin burns, eye injury, ingestion, inhalation, systemic toxicity, decontamination, antidote, medical treatment” have been reviewed.RESULTS:This review is useful not only for physicians but for everyone who may come in contact with a person exposed to HF acid.CONCLUSION:It highlights the mechanism of action, presents the acute and chronic symptoms, personal and general protective measures and devices that should be used, as well as decontamination procedures, immediate, antidote and hospital medical treatment.

show abstract

“…The combination of both mechanical and chemical strategies is considered the gold standard for resin-cement/ glass-ceramic bonding [2,3,5]. However, HF may be a dangerous substance [8], reason why some researchers have focused their studies in looking for an alternative glass-ceramic surface treatment, by avoiding the usage of HF [9]. In addition, some manufacturers indicate to use their silane primers alone, without HF [10], at the time that some works claim that using only a silane primer is enough to achieve a proper bonding between glass-ceramic and resin cement [11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Silane Treatments on Long-Term Bonding Between Non-Etched Glass-Ceramic and Resin Cement

Murillo-Gómez

Góes²

2017

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study evaluated the bond strength between glass-ceramic and resin cement, using different silane treatments, performing no previous hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching on ceramic surface, after short- and long- term storage. One hundred and eighty glass-ceramic plaques (IPS e.max CAD®) were polished and divided into six groups (n=30) to receive different silane treatments: (1) RCP-RelyX Ceramic Primer® (one-bottle silane), (2) RCP+SB-RelyX Ceramic Primer and Adper Singlebond2® (silane plus separated adhesive), (3) SBU-Scotchbond Universal® (silane-containing universal adhesive), (4) CP-Clearfil Ceramic Primer® (silane/MDP primer), (5) NC-no-silane (negative control) and (6) PC-Previous HF etching (5%, 20s) plus RelyX Ceramic Primer® (positive control). Two resin cement cylinders (Rely X Ultimate®) were built on each plaque. Each group was divided into two sub-groups to be stored for 24 hours (24h) or 6 months (6mo) in distilled water at 37°C (n=15). Then microshear (µSBS) testing was performed. Failure mode was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey´s test (α=0.05). Both factors and their interaction resulted statistically significant (p≤0.05). PC obtained the highest µSBS values (in MPa) at both storage times (24h: 28.11±2.44; 6mo: 19.10±3.85). After 24h storage, groups RCP+SB (10.86±3.62), SBU (8.37±4.33) and CP (8.05±3.62) were not statistically different from NC (8.00±2.51); only RCP (19.73±4.63) and PC obtained higher values. After 6 months, only PC showed higher values than NC (0.04±0.01). Cohesive failure in resin cement was more prevalent for RCP-24h and PC, while adhesive failure was more frequent among all other groups. Clinical relevance: None of the commercially available silane primers tested, improve long- term ceramic/cement bonding without performing HF etching on ceramic surface. Combination of HF acid and silane, remain as a gold standard treatment for glass-ceramic materials.

show abstract

Dermal absorption and skin damage following hydrofluoric acid exposure in an ex vivo human skin model

Cited by 27 publications

References 33 publications

Adhesion to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Etched with Hydrofluoric Acid at Distinct Concentrations

Adhesion to a Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Etched with Hydrofluoric Acid at Distinct Concentrations

Hydrofluoric Acid: Burns and Systemic Toxicity, Protective Measures, Immediate and Hospital Medical Treatment

Effect of Different Silane Treatments on Long-Term Bonding Between Non-Etched Glass-Ceramic and Resin Cement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About