Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Reactions to dental impression materials.

G van Groeningen, J P Nater

    Contact Dermatitis
    |December 1, 1975
    PubMed
    Summary

    Allergic reactions to dental materials Scutan and Impregum were identified in patients undergoing temporary crown and bridge treatment. Patch tests confirmed allergies to specific catalysts within these common dental products.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries: a retrospective study in the general population.

    International journal of cosmetic science·2009
    Same author

    Oscar Wilde's skin disease: allergic contact dermatitis?

    Contact dermatitis·1992
    Same author

    Evaluation of a self-administered questionnaire on hand dermatitis.

    Contact dermatitis·1992
    Same author

    Patch tests with house dust mite antigens in atopic dermatitis patients: methodological problems.

    Acta dermato-venereologica·1991
    Same author

    Susceptibility to irritants: role of barrier function, skin dryness and history of atopic dermatitis.

    The British journal of dermatology·1990
    Same author

    [Tretinoin; promise for eternal cutaneous youth?].

    Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde·1990

    Area of Science:

    • Prosthetic Dentistry
    • Dental Materials Science
    • Allergology

    Background:

    • Scutan (epimine plastic) and Impregum (polyether impression material) are widely used for temporary crowns, bridges, and impressions.
    • Over four years, approximately 2,000 patients received treatment with these materials at the Groningen prosthetic dentistry department.
    • Ten patients reported adverse reactions, prompting further investigation.

    Observation:

    • Patch testing was conducted on four patients who experienced untoward reactions.
    • The basic materials used in Scutan and Impregum were tested.
    • Control subjects without prior reactions were also tested for comparison.

    Findings:

    • Positive allergic reactions were observed in patch tests.
    • Specifically, patients reacted to methyl p. toluene sulfonate (in Scutan) and methyldichlorobenzene sulfonate (in Impregum) catalysts.
    • These catalysts, at 0.1% concentration in dibenzyltoluol, elicited reactions, while controls showed no response.

    Implications:

    • Identifies specific allergenic components within commonly used dental materials.
    • Highlights the importance of patch testing for diagnosing material-induced allergies in dentistry.
    • Suggests potential for material modification or alternative material selection to prevent adverse patient reactions.

    Related Experiment Videos