In the NSG assessments, 24h after opening the packaging (S4) only the UniGloves brand showed no contamination, but this was not observed after 7 days (S5). After S2 and S3 all brands showed contamination. Results: At S1, only the NSG UniGloves and Nugard brands showed contamination, while no contamination was observed in the SG. For turbid samples, bacterial identification was performed through culture and biochemical tests. These samples were incubated for 24 and 48h and the turbidity of the medium was evaluated. After smearing the gloves with sterile swabs, the samples were immediately placed in test tubes containing specific BHI culture medium. In the NSG group, to assess possible contamination by exposure to the clinical environment, samples were also collected within 24 hours (S4) and 7 days (S5) after opening the packages. Microbiological collections were performed at 3 different time-points: immediately after opening the packages (S1) after performing rubber dam placement (S2) and at the end of root canal treatment (S3). Methodology: Five brands (n = 10 per brand) of NSG (Supermax, UniGloves, Lemgruber, Nugard and Embramac) and four brands (n = 10 per brand) of SG (Sensitex, Sanro, Mucambo, Madeitex) were analyzed. Objective: To evaluate the microbiological contamination of sterile (SG) and non-sterile (NSG) gloves before and during different stages of endodontic treatment. State University of Rio de Janeiro Grande Rio Universityīiological contamination Endodontics Gloves, Protective Gloves, Surgical Root canal therapy.

Jefferson dental endo evaluation