Surgical versus examination gloves in exodontia: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

S. Deshmukh, B. Vidya, M. Alexander, R. Bonde, S. Bommaji, A. Nayyar
{"title":"Surgical versus examination gloves in exodontia: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial","authors":"S. Deshmukh, B. Vidya, M. Alexander, R. Bonde, S. Bommaji, A. Nayyar","doi":"10.4103/NJSS.NJSS_8_17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: In developing countries like India, where money set aside for public health, is <1% of the gross domestic product, routine use of surgical gloves for examining patients as well as for minor surgical procedures can be a drain on the resources. Hence, we decided to conduct a study to ascertain whether it is necessary to use surgical gloves in routine dental extractions. Aims: This study aims to conduct a study to ascertain whether it is necessary to use surgical gloves in routine dental extractions. Materials and Methods: A comparative, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was carried out in one hundred patients for nonsurgical extractions of multiple teeth, performed aseptically. Microbiology specimens were taken from the glove's surfaces according to a standard protocol. An independent assessor, who was blinded for the procedure, examined the patients on the 7th postoperative day. Data were entered into Microsoft Excel sheet and subjected to Statistical analysis using SPSS Version 20. Statistical Analysis: Paired “t”-test, unpaired “t”-test and Karl Pearson's Coefficient test were used to calculate the scientific data and association between variables. A P = 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant while 0.001 or less, as statistically, highly significant. Results: A total of 100 patients who had 356 extractions were obtained at the end of the study. Paired “t”-test showed the highly significant difference from pre- to post-operative colony forming units at 1% level of significance (P < 0.01). Conclusions: The present study concluded that the use of surgical gloves does not offer a definite advantage over examination gloves in minimizing the rate of infections following extraction of teeth.","PeriodicalId":90935,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian journal of surgical sciences : official journal of the Nigerian Section of International College of Surgeons","volume":"27 1","pages":"9 - 13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian journal of surgical sciences : official journal of the Nigerian Section of International College of Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/NJSS.NJSS_8_17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Context: In developing countries like India, where money set aside for public health, is <1% of the gross domestic product, routine use of surgical gloves for examining patients as well as for minor surgical procedures can be a drain on the resources. Hence, we decided to conduct a study to ascertain whether it is necessary to use surgical gloves in routine dental extractions. Aims: This study aims to conduct a study to ascertain whether it is necessary to use surgical gloves in routine dental extractions. Materials and Methods: A comparative, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was carried out in one hundred patients for nonsurgical extractions of multiple teeth, performed aseptically. Microbiology specimens were taken from the glove's surfaces according to a standard protocol. An independent assessor, who was blinded for the procedure, examined the patients on the 7th postoperative day. Data were entered into Microsoft Excel sheet and subjected to Statistical analysis using SPSS Version 20. Statistical Analysis: Paired “t”-test, unpaired “t”-test and Karl Pearson's Coefficient test were used to calculate the scientific data and association between variables. A P = 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant while 0.001 or less, as statistically, highly significant. Results: A total of 100 patients who had 356 extractions were obtained at the end of the study. Paired “t”-test showed the highly significant difference from pre- to post-operative colony forming units at 1% level of significance (P < 0.01). Conclusions: The present study concluded that the use of surgical gloves does not offer a definite advantage over examination gloves in minimizing the rate of infections following extraction of teeth.
正畸手术手套与检查手套的比较:一项随机、双盲、对照试验
背景:在印度等发展中国家,用于公共卫生的资金不足国内生产总值(gdp)的1%,常规使用手术手套检查患者以及进行小型外科手术可能会消耗资源。因此,我们决定进行一项研究,以确定是否有必要在常规拔牙时使用手术手套。目的:本研究旨在进行一项研究,以确定在常规拔牙时是否有必要使用手术手套。材料与方法:对100例患者进行无菌非手术拔牙的前瞻性、随机、双盲对照研究。按照标准规程从手套表面采集微生物标本。术后第7天,一名独立的评估人员对患者进行盲法检查。数据录入Microsoft Excel表格,使用SPSS Version 20进行统计分析。统计分析:采用配对“t”检验、非配对“t”检验和卡尔·皮尔逊系数检验计算科学数据和变量之间的相关性。P = 0.05或更小被认为具有统计学意义,而0.001或更小被认为具有高度统计学意义。结果:研究结束时,共有100例患者拔牙356次。配对“t”检验显示,术前与术后菌落形成单位差异极显著(P < 0.01),显著性水平为1%。结论:本研究的结论是,在尽量减少拔牙后的感染率方面,手术手套的使用并不比检查手套有明确的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信