Background: A multitude of methacrylic monomers is used in dentistry. Glutaraldehyde (G) is used in dental practice and consumer products as a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the frequency and the risk of concomitant sensitization to some methacrylic monomers (methyl methacrylate (MMA), triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), 2,2-bis-[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacrylo-xypropoxy)phenyl]-propane (Bis-GMA), 2-hydroxy-ethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate (THFMA)) and glutaraldehyde in students of dentistry, students from the dental technician school, dental professionals and dental patients. Material and Methods: A total of 262 participants were included in the study: students of dentistry, students from the dental technician school, dental professionals, and dental patients as a control group. All were patch-tested with methacrylic monomers and glutaraldehyde. The results were subject to the statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Results: Among the group of dental students, the highest frequency of concomitant sensitization was to TEGDMA and G (15.5%). In the group of patients the highest frequency of concomitant sensitization was to EGDMA and G (16.4%). The frequency of concomitant sensitization among dental professionals was much lower, with the highest rate to TEGDMA and G (7.7%), too. We consider the students from the dental technician school, where the exposure to glutaraldehyde is less likely, to be the group at a lesser risk of concomitant sensitization. Conclusions: Dental students and dental patients could be outlined as groups at the risk of concomitant sensitization to glutaraldehyde and methacrylic monomers. For dental professionals, we assumed an increased risk for concomitant sensitization to TEGDMA and aldehydes that are commonly used in dentistry. We consider the students from the dental technician school to be the group at a lesser risk of concomitant sensitization to glutaraldehyde and methacrylic monomers. Med Pr 2016;67(3):311–320