PDF Version - Glidewell Dental Labs

In 1976 it also went out on a limb, declaring the swine flu of that year
was the 1918 variety. It was not, though useless vaccines were distributed
to the nation with hundreds of deaths and thousands of hospitalizations
from adverse reactions. The anti-HIV cream Noroxnol-9, promoted by the
CDC, was found to enhance the spread of AIDS, not hinder it. Former Surgeon
General David Satcher called the CDC labs a national disgrace. Congress
criticized the CDC for changing the definition of AIDS, thus doubling
case numbers in an effort to garner more funding. 17 This sad episode was
termed by the CDC as “the distortion.”
A long series of crises, scandals, reorganizations, mistakes, policy flipflops,
infighting and political interference has left the CDC with a legacy
of questionable competence. Since most infection control procedures are
based on this flawed organization’s recommendations, dentists would be
best served to be more critical than accepting of such government edicts.
“Strange schemes appeared
in the journals, such as
ads stating, ‘Patients love
headbags’ or ‘$20
precision, plastic individual
handpieces.’”
The second area of political deception lies in dental publishing. Originally, a few articles on gloves and other PPEs
appeared in 1980s journals rebutted by other papers opposing their routine use. As time went on, increasingly more
journals printed unsubstantiated horror stories of dentists getting AIDS from patients and other rumors. They published
increasingly bizarre recommendations from so-called infection control gurus increasing the panic. This brought attention
and sold issues. Advertising for disposable (e.g., glove) manufacturers went from 3 percent to 25 percent of most
dental publications’ ad space with the accompanying (financial) pressure on editors to avoid infection control criticisms,
which would hurt business. Strange schemes appeared in the journals, such as ads stating, “Patients love headbags (a
paper isolation bag with a hole for the mouth)” or “$20 precision, plastic individual handpieces (to ensure sterility and
cracked enamel).” Some major dental organizations, profiting from the increased attention, adverted in their journals
and took on the lead to perpetuate the deception that dentists were in danger of AIDS. They accepted whatever the CDC
handed them, because protesting or questioning had some degree of political risk. Instead, they embellished the recommendations
of extremes (e.g., heat sterilization of handpieces) to the detriment of the practitioners and their patients.
Few journals protested and fearful dental staff embraced the deceptions with lemming enthusiasm.
Conclusion
Gloves are imperfect. They often contribute to the breakdown of the natural skin barriers. They are poor barriers to the
transmission of viruses because of numerous voids derived from manufacturing and use. Gloves are cumbersome for
the dentist to wear. Gloves are costly, allergenic, contain irritants and breed microorganisms. The wearing of gloves is
beneficial at times (e.g., deep surgery) but can be hazardous at others. The wearing of gloves should not be mandated
by government edict but left to the discretion of the dentist in situations where the wearing of gloves provides more
benefit than liability. As costs and glove-related illnesses increase, there is no rational scientific reason to continue routine
glove use. It is time for dentists to decide what is best for their patients, not bureaucrats and hucksters. It is time
for re-evaluation of glove use on a case-by-case basis.
What can be done? If the contaminated/sterile glove issue becomes public, there will be extreme pressure to replace
exam gloves with expensive sterile gloves. Each practice will be required to spend at least 10 times more money on
glove supplies. How much will this cost you? In this time of financial difficulty, in which many practices are in economic
trouble and the excesses and window dressings of the wealthier past no longer can be comfortably funded, such
costs would be ruinous. Many dentists will lose their jobs. Many practices will fold. The glove problem must be tackled
sooner or later.
The problem with latex gloves is simple to solve. Dentists must pressure the CDC to declare that gloves are potentially
hazardous and that its recommendations on mandatory UPs (including glove wear) are optional in those cases where
UPs use is more detrimental than beneficial based on the dentist’s evaluation on a case-by-case basis. In this way, glove
use will be determined by the doctor, not the bureaucrat. The blood-borne pathogen concerns of a medical heart surgeon
need not be extrapolated to the dentist doing a prophy on a healthy 3-year-old. OSHA’s blood borne regulations
already have this glove option, to a limited degree, in place (Federal Register 12-6-91. 56:235 p.64129d3ii). Once the
CDC publicizes this change, dentists can once again take command of their practices. It’s your future and your patients’
health, and now is the time to act. CM
The Deceptions of Rubber Gloves61