Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 65, Issue 10 , Pages 1922-1925, October 2007

Comparative Analysis of 2 Techniques of Double-Gloving Protection During Arch Bar Placement for Intermaxillary Fixation

  • Cristiano Gaujac, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Chief Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinics Hospital, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; and Postgraduate Student, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, UNESP, Araçatuba, Brazil.
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Gaujac: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinics Hospital of the Medical School, University of São Paulo, Av Dr Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 255–Cerqueira César, CEP: 05403.001 São Paulo, Brazil
  • ,
  • Marcelo M. Ceccheti, DDS, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinics Hospital, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • ,
  • Frederico Yonezaki, DDS

      Affiliations

    • Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinics Hospital, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • ,
  • Idelmo R. Garcia Jr, DDS, MSc, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, UNESP, Araçatuba, Brazil.
  • ,
  • Maria Paula S.M. Peres, DDS, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Director, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinics Hospital, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Purpose

This study was conducted to comparatively evaluate, in a prospective and randomized manner, 2 techniques for providing double-gloving protection during arch bar placement for intermaxillary fixation.

Materials and Methods

A total of 42 consecutive patients in whom application of an Erich bar was indicated for intermaxillary fixation were equally divided into 2 groups. In group 1, 2 sterile surgical gloves were used; in group 2, a nonsterile disposable inner glove was used under a sterile surgical glove. Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and binomial statistical tests were used to analyze the findings.

Results

A total of 103 perforations were found in the outer gloves (47 in group 1 and 56 in group 2), along with 5 perforations in inner gloves in both groups (α = .01). No significant statistical difference was found between groups in terms of inner glove perforations (α = .05). The nondominant hand presented with 70.9% of the perforations, statistically significant to 1%.

Conclusions

Both double-gloving techniques were found to provide effective clinician protection. The use of a nonsterile disposable glove under the surgical glove is possible for less-invasive procedures, offering the same safety as using 2 sterile surgical gloves while decreasing operational costs. This method does not eliminate the need to change gloves when a perforation is suspected or noted during the surgery, however.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0278-2391(07)01240-2

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2006.06.311

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 65, Issue 10 , Pages 1922-1925, October 2007