Health Risk Assessment in Exposure to Methacrylic Monomers in Dental Practice

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the health status and to assess the risk of adverse health effects manifestation among occupationally exposed to methacrylic monomers dental professionals (dentists, nurses and attendants) and students of dental medicine and from the dental technician school, as well as to determine the incidence of sensitization to some methacrylic monomers in dental practice. Place and Duration of Study: Department “Oral and Image Diagnostic”, Medical University, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Sofia, Bulgaria, between January 2014 and July 2014. Methodology: A questionnaire survey, including a review of medical summary of history was performed among 262 participants – 213 exposed to methacrylic monomers in dental practice and education (dental professionals, students of dental medicine and from Dental technician school), mean age 30.9, and 49 non-exposed healthy referents – dental patients, mean age 45.1. Skin patch testing with methyl methacrylate (MMA), triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TREGDMA), ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), 2,2-bis[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacrylo-xypropoxy) phenyl] propane (BIS-GMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), tetrahidrofurfuril metacrylate and glutaraldehyde was performed. Results: Significantly higher incidence and risk of manifestation of subjective symptoms from the skin (OR=2.20, CI=1.12 – 4.34, P = .020) and the upper respiratory tract (OR=2.26, CI=1.45 – 4.45, P = .017) were established among the referents group. Occupational and during education exposures to the tested methacrylic monomers and to glutaraldehyde didn’t result in increased incidence of sensitization (P> .050). An increased incidence and OR for manifestation of concomitant sensitization to methacrylic monomers and glutaraldehyde was revealed, with very high significance, (P < .001, OR=4.52, CI=2.33 – 8.74). Men could be outlined as a group at risk of sensitization. Our results confirm the cross-reactivity of acrylic compounds – 43.9% of all the participants were allergic to more than one of the tested monomers. Conclusion: No role of exposure to methacrylic monomers in dental practice and education for increased incidence and risk of manifestation of irritant effects, subjective symptoms and sensitization were established. An increased incidence and risk of concomitant sensitization to methacrylic monomers and glutaraldehyde and of cross-reactivity of acrylic compounds were observed.