Key Points
-
The collection of data on adverse reactions to dental materials has shown that gloves produce nearly 50% of all adverse reactions reported.
-
The analysis of the reports provides us with the necessary evidence on which to base our judgement of the safe use of dental gloves.
-
This article shows that both patients and dental professionals are potentially at risk from an adverse reaction to gloves.
-
Although most glove-related adverse reactions were resolved or controlled, a substantial number of those experienced by dental professionals (14%) were potentially life- or career- threatening.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Burke FJT, Wilson NHF, Cheung SW . Trends in glove use by dentists in England and Wales: 1989-1992. Int Dent J 1994; 44: 195–201.
Wakelin SH, White IR . Natural rubber latex allergy. Clin Exp Dermatol 1999; 24: 245–248.
Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Medical glove powder report. USA: Food and Drug Administration, 1997. Http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/glvpwd.html
Medical Devices Agency. Latex sensitisation in the health care setting (use of latex gloves). UK: Department of Health, 1996, publication no. MDA DB9601. http://www.medical-devices.gov.uk/
Medical Devices Agency. Latex medical gloves (surgeons' and examination). Powdered latex medical gloves (surgeons' and examination). UK: Department of Health, June 1998, publication no. MDA SN9825.
British Dental Association Fact File. Hand dermatitis and latex allergy. UK: British Dental Association, June 1998. http://www.bda-dentistry.org.uk/
Spina AM, Levine HJ . Latex allergy: a review for the dental professional. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Path, Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 5–11.
Smedley J, Jury A, Bendall H, Frew A, Coggon D . Prevalence and risk factors for latex allergy: a cross sectional study in a United Kingdom hospital. Occup Enviro Health 1999; 56: 833–836.
ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. The dental team and latex hypersensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130: 257–64.
Meyer JD, Chen Y, Holt DL, Beck MH, Cherry NM . Occupational contact dermatitis in the UK: a surveillance report from EPIDERM and OPRA. Occup Med 2000; 50: 265–273.
Wrangsjo K, Wallenhammar LM, Örtengren U, Barregard L, Andreasson H, Bjorkner B, Karlsson S, Meding B . Protective gloves in Swedish dentistry: use and side-effects. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145: 32–37.
Adverse Reaction Reporting Project survey results summary. Department of Adult Dental Care, University of Sheffield, UK. April 2002. http://www.shef.ac.uk/~arrp
Jolanki R, Estlander T, Alanko K, Savelo A, Kanerva L . Incidence rates of occupational contact urticaria caused by natural rubber latex. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40: 329–331.
Tarlo SM, Sussman GL, Holness DL . Latex sensitivity in dental students and staff: a cross-sectional study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997; 99: 396–401.
Poley GE, Slater JE . Latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000; 105: 1054–1062.
Kujala VM, Reijula KE . Glove-induced dermal and respiratory symptoms among health care workers in one Finnish hospital. Am J Ind Med 1995; 28: 89–98.
Hamann CP, Turjanmaa K, Rietschel R, Siew C, Owensby D, Gruninger SE, Sullivan KM . Natural rubber latex hypersensitivity: incidence and prevalence of type I allergy in dental professionals. J Am Dent Ass 1998; 129: 43–54.
Wrangsjo K, Osterman K, van Hage-Hamsten M . Glove-related skin symptoms among operating theatre and dental care unit personnel. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30: 102–107.
Tinsley D, Chadwick RG . The permeability of dental gloves following exposure to certain dental materials. J Dent 1997; 25: 65–70.
Tomazic VJ, Shampaine EL, Lamanna A, Withrow TJ, Adkinson NF, Hamilton RG . Cornstarch powder on latex products is an allergen carrier. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994; 93: 751–758.
Lönnroth EC, Shahnavaz H . Hand dermatitis and symptoms from the fingers among Swedish dental personnel. Swed Dent J 1998; 22: 23–32.
Olsen RJ, Lynch P, Coyle MB, Cummings J, Bokete T, Stamm WE . Examination gloves as barriers to hand contamination in clinical practice. J Am Med Assoc 1993; 270: 350–353.
Urjanmaa K, Lahti A . Prick and use tests with 6 glove brands in patients with immediate allergy to rubber proteins. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 26: 259–262.
Mahler V, Fischer S, Fuchs T, Ghannadan M, Valent P, Fartasch M, Kraft D, Schuler G, Valenta R . Prevention of latex allergy by selection of low-allergen gloves. Clin Exp Allergy 2000; 30: 509–520.
Vandenplas O, Delwiche JP, Depelchin S, Sibille Y, Vande-Weyer R, Delaunois l . Latex gloves with a lower protein content reduce bronchial reactions in subjects with occupational asthma caused by latex. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151: 887–891.
Turjanmaa K, Makinen-Kiljunen S . Latex allergy: prevalence, risk factors, and cross-reactivity. Methods 2002; 27: 10–14.
Strauss RM, Gawkrodger DJ . Occupational contact dermatitis in nurses with hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44: 293–296.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the NHS National Research and Development Programme on Primary Dental Care. We would also like to thank all the dental health professionals who have contributed reports of adverse reactions to the ARRP.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed Paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scott, A., Gawkrodger, D., Yeoman, C. et al. Adverse reactions to protective gloves used in the dental profession: experience of the UK Adverse Reaction Reporting Project. Br Dent J 195, 686–690 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810821
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810821
This article is cited by
-
The safety and biocompatibility of direct aesthetic restorative materials
British Dental Journal (2022)
-
The use of latex and non-latex gloves and dental equipment in UK and Irish dental hospitals
British Dental Journal (2021)
-
Key determinants of health and wellbeing of dentists within the UK: a rapid review of over two decades of research
British Dental Journal (2019)
-
The national survey of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK: a preliminary study by the UK Adverse Reactions Reporting Project
British Dental Journal (2004)
