Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Br Dent J ; 196(8): 471-7; discussion 465, 2004 Apr 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15105862

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Dental treatment involves the use of a wide range of materials. Many of the dental materials or their components pose a potential risk to the patient and member of the dental team. Pre-market biocompatibility testing cannot guarantee absolute safety, making monitoring of materials likely to cause an adverse reaction essential. The prevalence of adverse reactions to dental materials amongst dental patients and staff has not been systematically monitored in the UK. This project aims to develop a systematic approach to the evaluation and monitoring of the extent and severity of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK. METHOD: Through the distribution of reporting forms to dental surgeries and laboratories in the UK, the ARRP has received 1,075 complete reports relating to adverse reactions seen or experienced by dental staff and patients. RESULTS: The main findings were that different materials cause adverse reactions to different groups of people. The largest proportion of patient related adverse reactions were reported to be due to metals (n = 175). These were mainly amalgam associated oral lichenoid reactions (n = 124). Dental technicians reported acrylic resin as the causal factor of hand dermatitis in 61% (44 out of a total 72) of cases reported. Finally, dental surgery staff reported gloves as causing hand dermatitis in 75% of cases (398 out of a total 531). CONCLUSIONS: Different dental materials affect different person groups depending on their exposure to the material. Dental staff are most at risk from an adverse reaction to latex gloves, whereas most reported reactions for patients were due to metals. For dental technicians the biggest danger of an adverse reaction was from acrylic resins. There is a need to continue to raise the awareness among dental professionals of the existence of the Adverse Reactions Reporting Project so as to overcome problems of under-reporting.


Subject(s)
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , Dental Materials/adverse effects , Acrylic Resins/adverse effects , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/statistics & numerical data , Dental Alloys/adverse effects , Dental Amalgam/adverse effects , Dental Auxiliaries/statistics & numerical data , Dental Offices/statistics & numerical data , Dental Technicians/statistics & numerical data , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Female , Gloves, Surgical/adverse effects , Hand Dermatoses/epidemiology , Humans , Laboratories, Dental/statistics & numerical data , Lichen Planus, Oral/epidemiology , Male , Safety , United Kingdom/epidemiology
2.
Br Dent J ; 195(12): 686-90, 2003 Dec 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-14718955

ABSTRACT

The Adverse Reaction Reporting Project (ARRP) was set up to measure the extent and severity of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK. Further analysis into the use of protective gloves has been carried out to establish the degree to which gloves are having a deleterious effect on the dental profession. In addition the survey aimed to establish the techniques used to manage adverse reactions and their effectiveness. In a 23-month period, 369 reports were received concerning adverse reactions to protective gloves used in dental practices. Reporters were contacted for further information, and a 92% response rate was achieved. The 330 reports analysed showed dentists to be the largest group to report adverse reactions, whilst dental technicians reported the fewest. The referral rate for staff and patients was similar with a third of adverse reactions being referred (n=110) to a specialist for diagnosis. A confirmed diagnosis was received in 65% of referred cases (n=72), but the symptoms reported suggested a larger degree of Type I reactions occurring than diagnosed. The use of non-powdered gloves appeared to be favoured over powdered gloves in 42% of glove changes, and nitrile gloves were used as an alternative to latex in 39% of changes. In conclusion, the results from this survey showed that wearing gloves in dental practices in the UK caused a range of adverse reactions. In 79% (n=330) of cases reported and analysed, these reactions were readily resolved or improved by self-medication, prescribed medication and/or changing to a different type of protective glove.


Subject(s)
Dental Staff , Gloves, Surgical/adverse effects , Hypersensitivity/etiology , Occupational Diseases/chemically induced , Product Surveillance, Postmarketing , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Gloves, Surgical/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Latex Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Latex Hypersensitivity/etiology , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
3.
Br Dent J ; 175(8): 270-1, 1993 Oct 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-8217417
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...