PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “OCCUPATIONAL DERMATITIS”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 595 records · Page 33Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

Occupational contact dermatitis due to nickel allergy.

Contact allergy to nickel is a large dermatological problem affecting 10-15% of women and 1% of men in the general population. The aim of this study was to illustrate the significance of occupational nickel exposure in men. Patch testing was carried out to identify patients with nickel allergy and the dimethylglyoxime test was used to identify sources of nickel exposure. 8% of the men and 30% of the women were patch-test positive to nickel. Most of the patients had hand eczema, and a few had facial eczema. Tools and equipment used in different jobs by workers such as carpenters, electricians, painters, and plumbers were often found to cause nickel release. Black-nickel plating is used for optical equipment while cold-sealing of aluminium with nickel is a method of treating anodized aluminium. Both black-nickel and cold-sealed aluminium were found to be unexpected causes of dermatitis due to nickel release. Sources of occupational nickel exposure are often missed by dermatologists, due to lack of knowledge. Occupational nickel exposure is however important to identify, and the dimethylglyoxime test is a helpful tool.

Dermatitis, Allergic Contact↗
PubMed2000

Efficacy of a barrier cream and its vehicle as protective measures against occupational irritant contact dermatitis.

The actual advantage of barrier creams over bland emollients for skin protection is still hotly debated. In a randomized, double-blinded study, a newly-introduced barrier cream and its moisturizing vehicle were compared regarding their skin compatibility, efficacy and resulting acceptance. Thus, 2 panels of 25 hospital nurses with mild signs of skin irritation were asked to use 1 of the test products provided (verum or vehicle) over a period of 4 weeks. Effects of both types of preparations were studied weekly by clinical examination and the instrumental assessment of bioengineering parameters. Results showed no significant differences between barrier cream and vehicle. In both groups, clinical skin status improved and stratum corneum hydration increased significantly during the study period. Both preparations were tolerated and accepted well, thus showing both skin protection and skin care. These results contribute to the debate as to whether a strict distinction between "skin care" and "skin protection" products is justified. The vehicle alone is capable of positively influencing skin status. Emphasis must be laid on regular, frequent, and correct application of a product for it to be effective.

Adult↗