{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024480712166172106, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014094955489614243, 'mean_word_length': 5.159817351598173, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In vivo testing of the protection of gloves against acrylates in dentin‐bondingsystems on patients with known contact allergy to acrylates

Occupational contact allergies to dental acrylates are increasing. Commonly used gloves protect poorly against acrylates. The protective efcacy in vivo of other, newer glove materials is not fully known. In this study, an open chamber system was used for testing the protection in vivo of 6 different gloves (1 vinyl glove, 2 latex gloves, 2 nitrile gloves and the 4H® glove) against a commonly used dental adhesive, ScotchbondTM 1, containing 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2‐HEMA) and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TREGDMA). 8 patients with known contact allergy to 2‐HEMA participated. Provocation with 50 μl of the adhesive for 7.5, 15 and 30 min was performed for each glove. The test demonstrated clear differences in the protective efcacy between the gloves. The 4H® glove gave by far the best protection, followed by one of the nitrile gloves. One of the latex gloves and the vinyl glove gave a very poor protection against the adhesive. A dose‐response relationship was observed between different application times of the acrylate product. The test model promises to be a useful clinical complement to in vitro methods in individual preventive measures against contact sensitization to acrylates.