A preliminary report on the incidence of pre-existing pinhole defects in nitrile dental gloves

Abstract

Introduction Examination gloves manufactured from natural latex have been the predominant glove choice to date in dental practice. However, concerns over hypersensitivity have resulted in the use of alternatives such as nitrile gloves. The aim of the current study was to assess the incidence of pre-existing pinhole defects in nitrile examination gloves. Methods Air inflation, followed by water submersion, was used to assess the incidence of pre-existing pinhole defects in five nitrile and two latex glove types. The gloves were filled with a constant volume of air and submerged in 3 litres of water for 10 seconds while being observed for air bubbles which would indicate pinhole defects. The position and number of pinholes were noted for 100 gloves of each type investigated. Results The incidence of pre-existing pinholes for latex gloves was 0% for the non-sterile surgical latex glove type and 3% for the powdered latex examination glove type, with pinholes located on the thumb, middle finger and ring finger. Of the nitrile gloves evaluated, three types were assessed to have no pre-existing pinhole defects. One type had a 2% incidence of pre-existing pinhole defects -one pinhole located on the thumb region of the glove and one on the ring finger portion of the glove. The fifth nitrile glove type had one pre-existing pinhole defect located on the middle finger. Significance All glove types examined met the European Standard (EN 455-1) and there was no statistically significant difference between glove types. However, the nitrile gloves generally exhibited less pre-existing pinhole defects than the latex examination gloves.

Fingernail length as a predisposing factor for perforations of latex gloves: a simulated clinical experiment

“…This finding is similar to that reported by Phelan and Wong (18). However, in other studies, perforation rates over the thumbs and index fingers combined ranged from 41% (14) to 60% (9,19). Despite this diversity, all reports are in agreement that these 2 sites account for the greatest incidence of perforations.…”

“…Several authors have raised concerns about the integrity of gloves before and after clinical use and have reported various rates of perforation. Patel et al found that 0-3% of unused gloves had perforations as a result of manufacturers' defects (9). Other investigators assessed the integrity of gloves after clinical procedures and reported considerable diversity in the rate of perforations, from 1.9% (10) to 41% (15).…”

“…The compromised integrity of examination and surgical gloves has been linked to a number of factors, such as: the Research article material of the glove, being latex and non-latex (i.e. nitrile or vinyl) (9); concentration of latex in the glove (12); duration for which gloves were used (11,13); and the nature of clinical hand manipulation related to the clinical specialty (9,14,15). The effect of clinicians' fingernail length as a predisposing factor for latex glove perforation following clinical procedures has not been previously investigated.…”

“…However, several researchers have raised concerns over this integrity (6)(7)(8). For example, Patel et al found that 0-3% of unused gloves have pre-existing punctures (9), while Murray et al found that 1.95-5.3% of gloves had defects following routine dental practice (10). The integrity of gloves as a physical barrier has been linked to a number of factors, such as the material of the gloves and their latex content, as well as the duration and nature of the clinical procedures (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15).…”

Tensile Properties and Integrity of Clean Room and Low-Modulus Disposable Nitrile Gloves: A Comparison of Two Dissimilar Glove Types

“…The glove integrity results were different than the leak failure rates observed in comparable studies, which ranged from 0 to $3% (Rego and Roley, 1999; Korniewicz et al, 2002;Patel et al, 2003). In this study, the variability was higher for the clean room gloves, ranging from 0 to $6%.…”