4.5 Article

Effects of impermeable and semipermeable glove materials on resolution of inflammation and epidermal barrier impairment after experimental skin irritation

期刊

CONTACT DERMATITIS
卷 89, 期 1, 页码 26-36

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14317

关键词

glove; hand eczema; irritation; liners; non-invasive measuring methods; occlusion; semipermeable; Sympatex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the effects of different glove materials on inflammation and epidermal barrier impairment after experimental skin irritation. The results indicate that the semipermeable Sympatex material has better effects on skin parameters compared to other materials, suggesting that it can be a suitable material for glove liners or comfort gloves.
Background: Semipermeable membranes might be suitable for glove liners or comfort gloves in individuals with irritant contact dermatitis (ICD).Objectives: To evaluate the effects of different glove materials on inflammation and epidermal barrier impairment after experimental skin irritation.Methods: Nine test areas on the volar forearms of 24 healthy volunteers were irritated with sodium lauryl sulfate (1%) and afterward covered for 6 days (6 or 8 h/day) with semipermeable Sympatex (SYM), vinyl (OCC), combinations of vinyl with Sympatex (SYM/OCC) or cotton (COT/OCC), or left uncovered (CON). Up to day 10, measurements of transepidermal water loss (TEWL), erythema (a*), skin humidity (SH) and visual scoring (VS) were applied.Results: No significant differences in skin parameters were found between COT/OCC and SYM/OCC as well as between each of the combinations and CON. SYM, COT/OCC and SYM/OCC led to better results for most skin parameters than OCC alone.Conclusions: Occlusive material has a negative impact on skin barrier recovery and inflammation after skin irritation whereas SYM is not inferior to uncovered areas indicating good tolerability. Altogether, the data suggest that SYM is a useful alternative to COT as material for glove liners and comfort gloves in ICD patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据