ArticleFrontiers in oral health2024
Assessment of glove integrity across various dental specialties in a dental school setting.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the integrity of non-sterile, powder-free latex gloves used by dental students in various dental specialties. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study involved dental students from Ajman University who provided gloves during various dental specialty procedures. A total of 177 pairs of latex examination powder-free gloves were included and categorized as follows: 43 pairs (24.3%) were used in operative dentistry, 30 pairs (16.9%) in oral surgery, 28 pairs (15.8%) in endodontics, 24 pairs (13.6%) in periodontics, 21 pairs (11.9%) in pedodontics, 13 pairs (7.3%) in prosthodontics, and 18 pairs (10.2%) as control gloves. After use, glove integrity was assessed with a modified water leak test. Results: Perforations were identified in 72 cases (40.7%) of gloves, distributed as follows: 22 cases (51.2%) in operative dentistry, 12 cases (40.0%) in oral surgery, 11 cases (39.3%) in endodontics, 11 cases (45.8%) in periodontics, 10 cases (47.6%) in pedodontics, 5 cases (38.5%) in prosthodontics, and 1 case (5.5%) in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in the loss of glove integrity among different dental specialty procedures (χ Conclusions: The study found a high rate of glove perforations during dental procedures by undergraduate students, especially in the right thumb and index finger. To reduce cross-infection risks, strict protocols like double gloving, frequent glove changes, and covering wounds with plaster are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.