Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 11, 2026
Confocal Time Lapse Imaging as an Efficient Method for the Cytocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Composites
Published on: November 9, 2014
2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate, Methyl Methacrylate and Ethyl Acrylate Sensitisation: A 7-Year Retrospective Study
Mira Jagodich1, Dominik Németh2, Adrienn Tóth3
1Department of Dermatology, Heim Pál National Pediatric Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Background:
Acrylates are increasingly common contact allergens; sensitisation is frequently associated with nail products. No prior study has been found in the European literature in which both methyl methacrylate (MMA) and ethyl acrylate (EA), in addition to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) were included in the standard baseline series.
Objectives:
To investigate the prevalence and characteristics of 2-HEMA, MMA and EA sensitisation at a university centre in Hungary.
Methods:
This retrospective study included 2005 consecutive patients who underwent patch testing between 2018 and 2024 with the European baseline series (EBS) extended with 2-HEMA (in 2018), MMA and EA.
Results:
Out of the tested 2005 patients, 74 (3.7%) were positive for at least one of the three acrylates; among them 86.5% were women. Mostly the hands (70.3%) and the face (24.3%) were symptomatic. Nail product exposure was significantly more frequent among younger patients. 20.3% of the acrylate-positive patients had no hypersensitivity to 2-HEMA, only to MMA and/or EA. Reactions to 2-HEMA and EA mostly appeared on D2, whereas MMA first reactions were predominantly on D7.
Conclusion:
Our findings suggest that testing MMA and EA in the EBS would be beneficial. Evaluating patch tests until the 7th day is essential.
