Double gloving and a glove perforation indication system during the dental treatment of HIV-positive patients: are they necessary?

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.