HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 134, No 8, 1072-1078. © 2003 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by RAVIS, S. M. Articles by BELSITO, D. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by RAVIS, S. M. Articles by BELSITO, D. V. Related Collections Pharmacology

JADA Continuing Education

Background. Research has found that among health care workers, dental personnel are especially likely to have reactions to glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde.

Methods. The authors conducted patch test evaluations with a voluntary cohort of randomly recruited, healthy dental hygienists, or DHs, and dental assistants, or DAs, and nondental professionals to determine the incidence of glutaraldehyde-induced and formaldehyde-induced allergic contact dermatitis, or ACD; the potential for coreactivity between glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde; and the correlation between training methods in safe handling of sterilizing solutions and the sensitivity to glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde among DHs and DAs.

Results. The researchers enrolled 101 DHs and DAs and 51 nondental professionals in the study. All except one DH/DA subject were female. The dental subjects’ mean age was 34.3 ± standard deviation of 10.7 years; the nondental subjects’, 33.8 ± 11.0 years. DHs and DAs had worked in their profession for a mean of 11.0 ± 9.3 years. Among the dental professionals, 80 (79.2 percent) had had a known exposure to cold sterilizing solutions, while the remainder were unable to provide a known history of exposure. Eleven (10.9 percent) dental professionals had clear reactions to glutaraldehyde, four (4.0 percent) were questionably allergic to glutaraldehyde, and two (2 percent) were definitively allergic to formaldehyde. One (2 percent) control subject had a reaction to glutaraldehyde, and one other (2 percent) had a reaction to formaldehyde.

Conclusions and Clinical Implications. The authors found a statistically significant disparity in the rates of glutaraldehyde sensitivity among healthy DHs and DAs versus healthy control subjects (10.9 percent versus 2 percent reactively; P = .02). They found no evidence of cross-reactivity between glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde. The preponderance of reactions among the DHs and DAs suggests that their present safety practices are largely ineffective in protecting against sensitization to glutaraldehyde in sterilizing solutions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. P. HAMANN, L. G. DEPAOLA, and P. A. RODGERS Occupation-related allergies in dentistry J Am Dent Assoc, April 1, 2005; 136(4): 500 - 510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]