Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/588018897f8c9d0a098b4cbc
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Avaliação dos índices de perfurações em luvas de látex após procedimentos odontológicos

Evaluation of perforation index from latex gloves after dental procedures

Oliveira Neto, J.N.; Silva, L.C.F.; Amaral, G.B.; Oliveira Neto, L.A.; Santos, M.G.

Downloads: 1
Views: 721

Abstract

O presente trabalho tem como objetivo a avaliação dos índices de perfurações em luvas de látex, cirúrgicas e de procedimentos, após atendimentos rotineiros cirúrgicos e periodontais na Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade Federal de Sergipe – UFS. A amostra foi constituída por 304 luvas utilizadas nos procedimentos realizados entre agosto de 2006 e julho 2007. Em 30 luvas não utilizadas, foram verificadas possíveis ocorrências de perfurações provenientes de processos de manufatura. Das 304 luvas examinadas, 180 foram luvas de procedimentos, não estéreis, usadas em terapia periodontal não cirúrgica, e as outras 124 foram luvas cirúrgicas estéreis, usadas em 62 cirurgias dentoalveolares. As coletas das luvas ocorriam imediatamente após os procedimentos e logo eram submetidas à análise por meio do método de enchimento com água e ligeira compressão. Posteriormente, as seguintes informações foram documentadas: clínica pesquisada, o tipo de procedimento e sua duração, a localização da perfuração e se o operador é destro ou canhoto. No total, 65 luvas (21,3%) tiveram pelo menos uma perfuração. A análise dos índices relativos às clínicas revelou que Periodontia II obteve o maior índice (30%), seguida de Cirurgia I (29%), Cirurgia II (16,6%) e Periodontia I (15%). Nas 30 luvas não utilizadas, não foram observadas perfurações. Em relação à literatura pesquisada, a média geral de perfurações encontrada neste estudo se mostrou elevada.

Keywords

Luvas, perfuração, infecção, Odontologia

Resumo

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of perforations in sterile and not sterile latex gloves, after surgical and periodontal routine procedures developed at the Dental School of the Federal University of Sergipe. The sample was constituted by 304 gloves, used by undergraduate students from August 2006 to July 2007, and 30 unused gloves that were checked for perforations proceeding from manufacture processes. From the amount of used gloves, 180 of those had been not barren gloves (90 periodontal procedures) and the others 124 had been barren gloves (62 surgical procedures). The gloves were collected immediately after the procedures and were submitted to analyses with the water wadding method and mild compression. Thereafter, the following points were registered: clinic researched, type of procedure and its long, site of perforation and operator skill. Considering the totality of perforations, Periodontics II had the highest index (30%), followed by Surgery I (29%), Surgery II (16.6%) and Periodontics I (15%). In total, 65 gloves (21,3%) had at least one perforation and considering the literature researched, this is a high index.

Palavras-chave

Gloves, perforation, infection, Dentistry

References



1. Weber LW. Evaluation of the rate, location, and morphology of perforations in surgical gloves worn in urological operations. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2003;18:65-73.

2. Carlton JE, Dodson TB, Cleveland JL, Lock SA. Percutaneous injuries during oral e maxillofacial surgery procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55:553-7.

3. Avery CME, Gallaguer P, Birnbaum W. Double gloving and a glove perforation indication system during the dental treatment of HIV-positive patients: Are they necessary? Br Dent J. 1999;186:27-9.

4. Manson TT, Bromberg WG, Thacker JG, McGregor W, Morgan RF, Edlich RF. A new glove puncture detection system. J Emerg Med. 1995;13:357-64.

5. Larkin EB. Preliminary experience with polyethylene fibre glove liners in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;31:244-5.

6. Burke FJT, Baggett FJ, Lomax AM. Assessment of the risk of glove puncture during oral surgery procedures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996;82:18-21.

7. Murray CA, Burke FJT, Mchuch S. An assessment of the incidence of punctures in latex and non-latex dental examination gloves in routine clinical practice. Br Dent J. 2001;190:377-80.

8. Cury AF. Perfuração da luva cirúrgica. Frequência e percepção. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 1999;21:593-6.

9. Queiroz SBF, Ramos RQ, Barbeiro RH. Avaliação da incidência de perfuração de luvas em procedimentos cirúrgicos. Rev Patol Oral. 2002;1:51-3.

10. Malhotra M, Sharma JB, Wadhwa L, Arora R. Prospective study of glove perforation in obstetrical and gynecological operations: Are we safe enough? J Obst Gynaecol Res. 2004;30:319-23.

11. Laine T, Arnio P. How often does glove perforation occur in surgery? Comparison between single gloves and a double-gloving system. Am J Surg. 2001;181:564-6.

12. Palmer JD, Rickett JW. The mechanisms and risks of surgical gloves perforation. J Hosp Infect. 1992;22:279-86.

13. Tanner J, Parkinson H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;3.

14. Murta EFC, Silva CS, Ferreira NAFD. Perfuração de luvas durante cirurgias ginecológicas. Rev Bras Ginecol Obst. 2000;22:225-8.

15. McAdam IK, Laughlin RE, MacNicholl B. Non-touch suturing technique fails to reduce glove puncture rates in an accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2004;21:560-1.

16. Thomas S, Agarwal M, Metha G. Intraoperative glove perforation-single versus double gloving in protection against skin contamination. Postgrad Med J. 2001;77:458–60.

17. Pegadas N, Avery CME. Precautions against crossinfection during operations for maxillofacial trauma. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;38:110-3.

18. Xavier RL, Vasconcelos BC, da Silva LCF, Porto GG. Glove perforation during oral surgical procedures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2006;11:E433-6.

19. Barbosa MVJ, Nahas FX, Ferreira LM, Farah AB, Ayaviri NA, Bariani RL. Risk of glove perforation in minor and major plastic surgery procedures. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2004;27:481-4.

20. Kupres K, Rasmussem SE, Albertini JG. Perforation rates for nonstereli examination gloves in routine dermatologic procedures. Dermatol Surg. 2002;28:338-9.

21. Pitten FA, Herdemann G, Kramer A. The integrity of latex gloves in clinical dental practice. Infection. 2000;28:388-92.
588018897f8c9d0a098b4cbc rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections