Feasibility of using Latex Examination Gloves as Dental Dam: A Tensile Strength Study

Bam Sabri, Nhm Radzi, Fza Hadi, IH Ismail
{"title":"Feasibility of using Latex Examination Gloves as Dental Dam: A Tensile Strength Study","authors":"Bam Sabri, Nhm Radzi, Fza Hadi, IH Ismail","doi":"10.24191/cos.v2i0.17521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate feasibility of hand gloves as a rubber dam isolation alternative, in respect of physical properties. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial study design was used. Three types of gloves were tested with two types of a rubber dam used as the control group. Cut-out pattern of dumb-bell shapes were made from 35 samples for each type of groups and tensile strength were tested using Universal Testing Machine and the Trapezium X software. All tests for physical requirements were performed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials D412, Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Rubbers and Thermoplastic Elastomers-Tension. Findings were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and differences were compared using a Tukey-Kramer interval calculated at the 0.05 significance level. Results: Heavy gauge rubber dam has the highest Mean (calculated at the 0.05 significance level) except for maximum stress calculated at entire area. Medium-gauge rubber dam has significantly higher tensile strength (44.5075 N/mm2) when compared to heavy-gauge rubber dam (35.7787 N/mm2) although it was 0.09mm thinner. Discovery 2020 Powder Free Latex Examination Gloves with tensile strength value of 28.5922 N/mm2 (±3.27366) is more than the minimum requirement specified by American Federal Specification ZZ-R90B Rubber Dam (Dental, 1985) (4000 pounds per square inch or 27.6 N/mm2). For all variable tested, all groups are significantly different from each other. The mean square between the groups was quite large. Conclusion: This study shows that there are significant differences between the physical strength of latex gloves when compared to rubber dam. However, the comparison between thickness and tensile strength among various rubber dam, did not correspond proportionately. Only one type of rubber gloves met the minimum requirement but that is just one aspect. In view of these mixed results, more research is needed before we can conclude that it is feasable that we use hand gloves to replace rubber dam.","PeriodicalId":10525,"journal":{"name":"Compendium of Oral Science","volume":"111 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Compendium of Oral Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24191/cos.v2i0.17521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate feasibility of hand gloves as a rubber dam isolation alternative, in respect of physical properties. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial study design was used. Three types of gloves were tested with two types of a rubber dam used as the control group. Cut-out pattern of dumb-bell shapes were made from 35 samples for each type of groups and tensile strength were tested using Universal Testing Machine and the Trapezium X software. All tests for physical requirements were performed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials D412, Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Rubbers and Thermoplastic Elastomers-Tension. Findings were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and differences were compared using a Tukey-Kramer interval calculated at the 0.05 significance level. Results: Heavy gauge rubber dam has the highest Mean (calculated at the 0.05 significance level) except for maximum stress calculated at entire area. Medium-gauge rubber dam has significantly higher tensile strength (44.5075 N/mm2) when compared to heavy-gauge rubber dam (35.7787 N/mm2) although it was 0.09mm thinner. Discovery 2020 Powder Free Latex Examination Gloves with tensile strength value of 28.5922 N/mm2 (±3.27366) is more than the minimum requirement specified by American Federal Specification ZZ-R90B Rubber Dam (Dental, 1985) (4000 pounds per square inch or 27.6 N/mm2). For all variable tested, all groups are significantly different from each other. The mean square between the groups was quite large. Conclusion: This study shows that there are significant differences between the physical strength of latex gloves when compared to rubber dam. However, the comparison between thickness and tensile strength among various rubber dam, did not correspond proportionately. Only one type of rubber gloves met the minimum requirement but that is just one aspect. In view of these mixed results, more research is needed before we can conclude that it is feasable that we use hand gloves to replace rubber dam.
使用乳胶检查手套作为牙坝的可行性:抗拉强度研究
目的:从物理性能方面评价手套作为橡胶坝隔离替代品的可行性。材料与方法:采用随机对照试验设计。测试了三种类型的手套,两种类型的橡胶坝作为对照组。采用通用试验机和Trapezium X软件对各类型组35个样品进行哑铃形状的裁剪,并进行拉伸强度测试。所有物理要求的试验均按照美国试验和材料学会D412《硫化橡胶、热塑性橡胶和热塑性弹性体-张力的标准试验方法》进行。结果采用方差分析(ANOVA)进行分析,差异采用Tukey-Kramer区间进行比较,显著性水平为0.05。结果:除全面积最大应力外,厚板橡胶坝的平均值最高(以0.05显著性水平计算)。中等规格橡胶坝的抗拉强度(44.5075 N/mm2)明显高于厚规格橡胶坝(35.7787 N/mm2),但厚度仅为0.09mm。Discovery 2020无粉乳胶检测手套抗拉强度值为28.5922 N/mm2(±3.27366),超过美国联邦规范ZZ-R90B橡胶坝(牙科,1985)规定的最低要求(4000磅每平方英寸或27.6 N/mm2)。对于所有被测变量,各组之间存在显著差异。两组之间的均方相当大。结论:本研究表明乳胶手套与橡胶坝的物理强度存在显著差异。但不同类型橡胶坝的厚度与抗拉强度的对比并不成正比。只有一种橡胶手套符合最低要求,但这只是一个方面。鉴于这些喜忧参半的结果,在我们得出用手套代替橡胶坝是否可行的结论之前,还需要更多的研究。
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