Mesleksel nikel dermatiti

Endüstriyel toplumlarda tüm meslek hastalıklarının %30’unu mesleki deri hastalıkları oluşturur. Epidemiyolojik verilere göre kontakt dermatitler mesleki deri hastalıklarının önemli bir kısmını oluşturmaktadır. Metaller en yaygın kontakt allerjenler olup, nikel metal allerjilerinin en yaygın nedenidir. Kadınlarda nikel duyarlılığı başta küpe olmak üzere takı ve benzeri aksesuarlarla ilişkilidir. Küpe başta olmak üzere her türlü takı, giysilerin ve çamaşırların metal kopçaları, düğme ve tokaları, madeni paralar, anahtarlar, gözlük çerçeveleri ve daha çok çeşitli ürün nikel içermektedir. Erkeklerde nikel duyarlılığı çoğunlukla mesleksel olarak kazanılmaktadır. Yapılan çalışmalar göstermiştir ki; endüstride pek çok meslek grubunda nikele maruziyet söz konusudur. Bunlar arasında alkali pil yapımı, çinko ve pirinç karartma, elektrolizle kaplama, lehimleme, elektrik kablo işleri sayılabilir. Nikel dermatiti kuaförlerde, müzisyenlerde ve terzilerde de ortaya çıkabilmektedir. Nikel dermatitinin besinlerle alınan nikel ile de ilişkili olduğu ortaya konulmuştur. Sigara içenlerde içmeyenlere oranla daha yüksek nikel duyarlılığı tespit edilmiştir. Nikel duyarlılığının tespitinde esas olarak yama testleri kullanılmaktadır. Nikel dermatitinden korunmada nikel maruziyetinin azaltılması esastır. Bu yazıda, nikel dermatitinin daha sık görüldüğü meslek grupları ile tanı ve korunmada dikkat edilmesi gereken noktalar literatür bilgileri ışığında gözden geçirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Meslek hastalıkları, Nikel, Dermatit

-

Thirty percent of all occupational diseases in industrial societies are occupational skin diseases. An important part of occupational skin diseases is contact dermatitis with respect to epidemiological data. Metals are the most common contact allergens and nickel is the most common among them. Nickel sensitivity in women is particularly related to jewelry, including earrings and other accessories. Especially all kinds of earrings, apparels and their metal clasps, buttons and buckles, coins, keys, frames of glasses and many more different kinds of products contain nickel. Nickel sensitivity in men is primarily occupational. Previous studies have shown that occupational exposure to nickel is seen in many industrial groups including alkaline battery manufacturing, zinc and brass dimming, electroplated coating, welding and electrical wiring. Nickel dermatitis may also occur in hairdressers, musicians and tailors. Nickel dermatitis was found to be associated with dietary nickel. Nickel sensitivity has been determined as higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Patch tests are mainly used for the diagnosis of nickel sensitivity. Reducing nickel exposure is essential for prevention of nickel dermatitis. In this paper, in the light of the literature, occupational groups more prone to nickel dermatitis and diagnosis and prevention of nickel dermatitis are reviewed.

Keywords:

Occupational diseases, Nickel, Dermatitis,

PDF

___

1. Clark SC, Zirwas MJ. Management of occupational dermatitis. Clin Dermatol 2009; 27:365-83. doi: 10.1016/j.det.2009.05.002
2. Nixon R, Frowen K, Moyle M. Occupational dermatoses. Aust Fam Physician 2005; 34:327-33.
3. Johansen JD, Menné T, Christophersen J, Kaaber K, Veien N. Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985-86 and 1997-98, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142:490-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2000.03362.x
4. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998; 38:911–8. doi: 10.1016/S0190-9622(98)70587-0
5. Sertoli A, Francalanci S, Acciai MC, Gola M. Epidemiological survey of contact dermatitis in Italy (1984–1993) by GIRDCA. Am J Contact Dermat 1999; 10:18–30. doi: 10.1016/S1046-199X(99)90089-1
6. Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Frosch P. Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. The Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Eur J Dermatol 1998; 1:36–40.
7. Erdem T, Kılıç B. Dermatolojide nikel alerjisi. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dermatol- Special Topics 2012;5:31–7.
8. Fransway AF, Zug KA, Belsito DV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007 – 2008. Dermatitis 2013; 24:10-21. doi: 10.1097/DER0b013e318277ca50.
9. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF. Metals. In: Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr, eds. Fisher‘s Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker Inc, 2008: 641-81.
10. Boyvat A, Akyol A. Allerjik kontakt dermatitli olgularda yama testi sonuçları. T Klin Alerji Astım 2000; 2:156-67.
11. Sharma AD. Relationship between nickel allergy and diet. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007; 73:307-12. doi: 10.4103/0378- 6323.35733
12. Goh CL. Common industrial processes and occupational irritants and allergens-an update. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994; 23:690-8.
13. Salazar LC, Guimaraens D, Villegas C, Romero A, Gonzalez MA. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in construction workers. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33:226-30.
14. Jue MS, Kim YS, Ro YS. Fiddler’s neck accompanied by allergic contact dermatitis to nickel in a viola player. Ann Dermatol 2010; 22:88-90.
15. Wallenhammer LM, Ortengren U, Andreasson H, et al. Contact allergy and hand eczema in Swedish dentists. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43:192-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2000.043004192.x
16. Duarte I, Rotter A, Lazzarini R. Frequency of occupational contact dermatitis in an ambulatory of dermatologic allergy. An Bras Dermatol 2010; 85:455-9.
17. Brandao MH, Gontijo B, Girundi MA, de Castro MC. Ear piercing as a risk factor for contact allergy to nickel. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2010; 86:149-54.
18. Shiao JS, Sheu HM, Chen CJ, Tsai PJ, Guo YL. Prevalence and risk factors of occupational hand dermatoses in electronics workers. Toxicol Ind Health 2004; 20 :1-7. doi: 10.1191/0748233704th193oa
19. Krecisz B, Kiec-Swierczynska M, Chomiczewska D. Dermatological screening and results of patch testing among Polish apprentice hairdressers. Contact Dermatitis 2011; 64:90-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600- 0536.2010.01844.x
20. Bordel-Gómez MT, Miranda-Romero A, Castrodeza-Sanz J. Epidemiology of contact dermatitis: prevalence of sensitization to different allergens and associated factors. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2010; 101:59-75. doi: 10.1016/S1578-2190(10)70581-3
21. Whörl S, Jandl T, Stingl G, Kinaciyan T. Mobile telephone as new source for nickel dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2007;56:113. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.00296.x
22. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Menné T, Nielsen NH, Linneberg A. Effect of tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption on the prevalence of nickel sensitization and contact sensitization. Acta Derm Venereol 2010; 90:27–33. doi: 10.2340/00015555-0772
23. Akasya E, Bayazıt EÖ. Avrupa standart yama testi serisi. Turkderm 2001; 35:265-76.
24. Minang JT, Areström I, Troye-Blomberg M, Lundeberg L, Ahlborg N. Nickel, cobalt, chromium, palladium and gold induce a mixed Th1- and Th2-type cytokine response in vitro in subjects with contact allergy to the respective metals. Clin Exp Immunol 2006; 146:417-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2006.03226.x
25. Young E, Honwing RH. Patch test results with standart allergens over a decade. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17:104-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600- 0536.1987.tb02670.x
26. Menné T, Dooms-Goossens A, Wahlberg JE, White IR, Shaw S. How large a population of contact sensitivities are diagnosed with the European Standard Series? Contact Dermatitis 1992; 26:201-2.
27. Nonaka H, Nakada T, Ijima M, Howard I. Metal patch test results from 1990–2009. J Dermatol 2011; 38:267–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1346- 8138.2010.00980.x
28. Akyol A, Gürgey E, Erdi H, Taşpınar A. Evaluation of the patch test results with standard antigens in various types of eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35:303. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02394.x
29. Akasya-Hillenbrand E, Özkaya-Beyazıt E. Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46:17-23. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.460104.x
30. Ada S. Allerjik kontakt dermatitli 775 olgunun yama testi sonuçları. Turkderm 2010; 44:187-92.
31. Gündüz Ö, Aytekin A, Yılmaz H. Meslek Hastalıkları Hastanesi’nde 231 hastaya uygulanan deri yama testi sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi. E-Poster bildiri. 1.Ulusal Mesleki Deri Hastalıkları Sempozyumu 23 -27 Mart 2011 Erzurum
32. Shore RN, Binnick S. Dimethylglioxime stick test for easier detection of nickel. Arch Dermatol 1977; 113:1734. doi: 10.1001/ archderm.1977.01640120102043
33. Jensen P, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Skare L, Menné T, Lidén C. Occupational hand eczema caused by nickel and evaluated by quantitative exposure assessment. Contact Dermatitis 2011; 64:32–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01819.x
34. Mathias CG. Contact dermatitis and worker’s compensation: criteria for establishing occupational causation aggravation. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 20 (5 Pt 1):842-8.
35. Shum K, Meyer J, Chen Y, Cherry N, Gawkrodger D. Occupational contact dermatitis to nickel: experience of British dermatologists (EPIDERM) and occupational physicians (OPRA) surveillance schemes. Occup Environ Med 2003; 60:954-7. doi: 10.1136/ oem.60.12.954
36. Zirwas MJ, Molenda MA. Dietary nickel as a cause of systemic contact dermatitis. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2009; 2:39–43.
37. Bregnhoj A, Menne T, Johansen JD, Sosted H. Prevention of hand eczema among Danish hairdressing apprentices: an intervention study. Occup Environ Med 2012; 69:310-6. doi: 10.1136/ oemed-2011-100294.
38. Du Plessis JL, Eloff FC, Badenhorst CJ, et al. Assessment of dermal exposure and skin condition of workers exposed to nickel at a South African base metal refinery. Ann Occupy Hyg 2010; 54:23–30 doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mep080
39. Wall LM. Nickel penetration through rubber gloves. Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6:461-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1980.tb05566.x
40. Frigerio E, Paolo D. Pigatto PD, Guzzi G, Altomare G. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants: a prospective study. Contact Dermatitis 2011; 64:273–9.
41. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs J J. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83: 428–36.