Page 13 - COS-FOD2015

Compend. Oral Sci:vol1(2);2015;6-13

strain (%), maximum stroke (mm) were record- larger than the calculated Tukey HSD interval
ed. were considered statistically significant (p <

0.05).
All the data were inserted in SPSS version 21.
Analyses to compare between gloves and rub-
ber dam for variables tested were done using 1- Result
way ANOVA. Differences between groups
Results from a total of 175 samples consisting
were analyzed using a Tukey-Kramer Post-Hoc
of 3 different types of latex gloves and 2 differ-
test, calculated at the 0.05 significance level.
ent weights (medium and heavy) of rubber dam
Differences between the two means that were

N Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum strain Maximum
displacement forces calcu- stress calculat- calculated at stroke calculat-
Brand strain (%) lated at entire ed at entire entire area (%) ed at entire area
2
area (N) area (N/mm or (mm)
MPa)
Mean (SD)

Cross Protec- 35 701.62 9.43 (8 21.43 678.81 305.46
tion Powder
Free Latex (9 .62P) 362) (.432P) (8.81Pr) (5.46Pr)
Examination
Gloves

Rainbow Den- 35 959.07 30.26 (1 44.50 919.73 413.88
tal Dam Pow-
der Free (2 .07w) 267) (.507w) (9.73w ) (3.88w )
(Medium
Gauge)

Rainbow Den- 35 1023.53 37.20 (9 35.77 (7 990.03 445.51
tal Dam Pow-
der Free (523.53) 205) 775) (0.033 ) (5.513 )
(Heavy
Gauge)

Cross Protec- 35 789.80 10.11 25.29 769.43 346.24
tion Pow-
dered Latex (9.80Pr) (.110P) (.290P) (9.43Pr) (6.24Pr)
Examination
Gloves

Discovery
2020 Powder 35 762.36 10.29 28.59 (.596e) 731.82 329.32
Free Latex (.296e)
Examination (3 .36e) (1.82er) (9.32er)
Gloves
175 31.12 19.46 (2.4.02) 368.08 (48.08) 817.96 847.27(97.27e)
Total
(3.122er) (87.96er)

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Variables of Interest

9