PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Eye Protective Devices”

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 1,153 records · Page 64Linked to original sources

A behavioral analysis of eye protection use by soldiers.

One of the major problems faced by eye injury prevention programs in the military is the low compliance among individual soldiers with eye armor use. We use three different health behavioral models (the health belief model, the social learning theory, and the PRECEDE model) to analyze and explore the various factors involved in the use of eye armor. Some of the factors that appear to be important in affecting the behavior include environmental conditions (e.g., actual military deployment versus nondeployment activity), organizational attitude toward eye protection programs, community influence, individual knowledge and perception of eye injury, and belief in the efficacy of eye armor. An understanding of these factors can help influence the development of more effective strategies for eye injury prevention in the military.

Eye Injuries↗

Use of polymer materials in dental clinics, case study.

Dentistry uses a variety of different polymer materials. Dental polymer materials are based on methacrylate, its polymer, and polyelectrolytes. The setting of restorative materials and adhesives is initiated chemically by mixing two components or by light. In both cases, polymerisation is incomplete and monomers, not reacted, release. Studies have documented that monomers may cause a wide range of adverse health effects such as irritation to skin, eyes or mucous membranes, allergic dermatitis, asthma, parenthesise in the fingers, and disturbances from central nervous system such as; headache, pain in the extremities, nausea, loss of appetite, fatigue, sleep disturbances, irritability, loss of memory and changes in blood parameters. Dental personnel are occupationally exposed when handling the non reacted monomers. The use of gloves do not give enough protection as monomers, released from the material, easily penetrate all gloves used in dentistry. Face masks do not prevent inhalation of monomers. Ordinary glasses do not protect the eyes against vapor from monomers. The result from this study demonstrate the need for the development of ergonomic procedures and practices for safe handling of such materials in dental clinics.

Asthma↗

[Protective eyeglasses].

Reminder of the materials used for the manufacture of corrective lenses. Belgian statistics concerning eye accidents at work and European legislation concerning the prevention of eye accidents, personal protective equipment, P.P.E. Eye protection for sports.

Accidents, Occupational↗

Adverse health reactions in skin, eyes, and respiratory tract among dental personnel in Sweden.

Dental personnel manually handle products that contain monomers. Several studies have documented adverse health effects after exposure to such products. Gloves made of vinyl or latex are easily penetrated by monomers. Ordinary glasses, or visors, do not protect against vapour from polymer products. Dental face masks filter out about 40% of respirable particles. To survey the prevalence of asthma, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, hay fever/rhinitis, and hand eczema among dental personnel, a questionnaire was distributed to all dental teams in Northern Sweden. Referents were researchers, teachers, and secretaries from the same geographical area. The response rate was 76% for dental teams, and 66% for referents. The results show a significantly higher prevalence of conjunctivitis, and atopic dermatitis among dentists, both male and female. Hypersensitivity to dental materials was reported by significantly more dental personnel than by referents.

Adult↗

Occupational exposure to optical radiation and the ocular health status of glassblowers.

The occupational radiation exposure levels and the ocular health status of a sample of glassblowers in southern Ontario were evaluated. The form of ocular protection was also assessed. Measurements of radiant emissions from different molten glass materials were carried out. A total of six glassblowing installations, 15 glassblowers and 42 non-glassblowers participated in the study. The spectral transmittances of samples of the protective lenses were obtained. Tonometry, biomicroscopy, ophthalmoscopy, pachometry, Schirmer tear test, endothelial photography were completed on all the volunteering subjects. The glassblowers' ocular findings were compared to those of non-glassblowers. No indication of cataract was observed among this group of glassblowers. Although, a preponderance of grade 2 polymegethism among the glassblowers (47% compared to 11% in non-glassblowers) was found, there was no significant difference in their ocular health. Variation in the corneal irradiance from occupational exposure was obtained, and in addition, the use of protective lenses was found to be inappropriate. In order to prevent against any long-term chronic pathologic effect, the use of appropriate ocular protection is advised.

Adult↗

Corneal abrasions.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Corneal Injuries↗