AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of glove perforation when double gloved or single gloved during the routine treatment of HIV-positive patients. In addition, a glove perforation indication system based on a double gloving technique was assessed. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised and open study of glove perforation. METHODS:138 consecutive HIV-positive patients underwent routine dental treatment by senior dental staff and dental hygienists in a teaching hospital. Staff wore either single gloves (Regent Biogel D or standard surgical gloves) or double gloves (Regent 'Reveal' perforation indication system or standard surgical gloves). A subjective assessment of glove comfort, sensitivity and ease of donning was made using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The incidence of glove perforation/procedure was low, 2.9%. There were no skin penetrating injuries, visible exposure to body fluids or unnoticed perforations. Double gloving was subjectively less comfortable and sensitive than single gloving (P < 0.0001). The glove perforation indication system did not increase the detection of intra-operative perforations. CONCLUSIONS: There is unlikely to be any significant benefit from the use of a double gloving technique or perforation indication system during the routine dental treatment of HIV-positive patients.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of glove perforation when double gloved or single gloved during the routine treatment of HIV-positivepatients. In addition, a glove perforation indication system based on a double gloving technique was assessed. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised and open study of glove perforation. METHODS: 138 consecutive HIV-positivepatients underwent routine dental treatment by senior dental staff and dental hygienists in a teaching hospital. Staff wore either single gloves (Regent Biogel D or standard surgical gloves) or double gloves (Regent 'Reveal' perforation indication system or standard surgical gloves). A subjective assessment of glove comfort, sensitivity and ease of donning was made using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The incidence of glove perforation/procedure was low, 2.9%. There were no skin penetrating injuries, visible exposure to body fluids or unnoticed perforations. Double gloving was subjectively less comfortable and sensitive than single gloving (P < 0.0001). The glove perforation indication system did not increase the detection of intra-operative perforations. CONCLUSIONS: There is unlikely to be any significant benefit from the use of a double gloving technique or perforation indication system during the routine dental treatment of HIV-positivepatients.
Authors: S Okala; J Doughty; R G Watt; A J Santella; D I Conway; W Crenna-Jennings; R Mbewe; J Morton; I Lut; L Thorley; L Benton; M Hibbert; J M C Jefferies; C Kunda; S Morris; K Osborne; H Patterson; L Sharp; G Valiotis; A Hudson; V Delpech Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 1.626