On permeability of methyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate through protective gloves in dentistry

Continuous glove use is more common in dentistry than in most other occupations, and the glove should offer protection against blood-borne infections, skin irritants and contact allergens. Methacrylate monomers are potent contact allergens, and it is known that these substances may penetrate the glove materials commonly used. The aim of this study was to assess the permeability of various types of gloves to methyl methacrylate (MMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) with special reference to combinations with ethanol or acetone. The permeation rate and time lag breakthrough (lag-BT) for MMA (neat, or diluted to 30% in ethanol or acetone), HEMA (30% in water, ethanol, or acetone) and TEGDMA (30% in ethanol or acetone) were investigated for different protective gloves. Nine different types of gloves were tested for one or several of these methacrylates. The lag-BT for neat MMA was less than or equal to 2 min for all gloves. For 30% MMA in ethanol or acetone, the latex gloves and the polyethene-copolymer glove showed the best protection, but the lag-BTs were short for all gloves. For HEMA and TEGDMA, the lag-BTs were generally longer than for MMA. A neoprene glove seemed to be the best choice for protection against penetration of HEMA and TEGDMA. The decision on which types of gloves to use should also take into account the risks of latex allergy and contact allergy to rubber chemicals and the convenience of the gloves for fine manual work.