No significant benefit from the use of double-gloving or perforation indication system

Abstract

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.