PURPOSE: This is a prospective study of the efficacy of three different techniques of triple gloving during the application of Erich arch bars. Two different cut-resistant glove liners and three layers of latex gloves were compared with double gloving. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients underwent Erich arch bar placement from first molar bilaterally on both arches. Two surgeons per case were arbitrarily placed into one of four groups that included double latex gloving, triple gloving with kevlar or stainless steel glove liners, or triple layer latex gloving, based on the availability of glove liners. All gloves were collected postoperatively and tested for perforation using water insufflation. RESULTS: One hundred eight of 120 outer gloves were perforated. There were 16 perforations in 11 inner gloves of the double latex glove group, but no perforations in the inner gloves of the triple latex glove group. There were two inner gloves with one perforation each in the stainless steel group and one glove with a perforation in the kevlar group. All techniques of triple gloving were found to be superior to double gloving. There was no difference between the techniques of triple gloving. CONCLUSION: During certain high-risk procedures greater protection to the surgeon can be obtained by triple gloving. The use of cut-resistant glove liners or triple layer latex gloving is superior to double layer latex gloving.
PURPOSE: This is a prospective study of the efficacy of three different techniques of triple gloving during the application of Erich arch bars. Two different cut-resistant glove liners and three layers of latex gloves were compared with double gloving. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients underwent Erich arch bar placement from first molar bilaterally on both arches. Two surgeons per case were arbitrarily placed into one of four groups that included double latex gloving, triple gloving with kevlar or stainless steel glove liners, or triple layer latex gloving, based on the availability of glove liners. All gloves were collected postoperatively and tested for perforation using water insufflation. RESULTS: One hundred eight of 120 outer gloves were perforated. There were 16 perforations in 11 inner gloves of the double latex glove group, but no perforations in the inner gloves of the triple latex glove group. There were two inner gloves with one perforation each in the stainless steel group and one glove with a perforation in the kevlar group. All techniques of triple gloving were found to be superior to double gloving. There was no difference between the techniques of triple gloving. CONCLUSION: During certain high-risk procedures greater protection to the surgeon can be obtained by triple gloving. The use of cut-resistant glove liners or triple layer latex gloving is superior to double layer latex gloving.