ArticlePDF Available

The Experience and Attitude of Saudi Patients towards Rubber Dam Isolation during Dental Treatments

Authors:
  • Riyadh Elm University
IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS) e-ISSN: 2279-0853, p-ISSN: 2279-0861.Volume 16, Issue 4 Ver. I (April. 2017), PP 70-74 www.iosrjournals.org
DOI: 10.9790/0853-1604017074 www.iosrjournals.org 70 | Page
The Experience and Attitude of Saudi Patients towards Rubber Dam
Isolation during Dental Treatments
Basil Yousif Alamassi1, Mowaffq Shafi2, Ahmed Alenezi2,
Abdullah Alghamdi2, Mohammed Alerredi2,
Omar Alwazzan2
1Lecturer - Department Of Restorative Dentistry- Riyadh Colleges Of Dentistry And Pharmacy
2Riyadh Colleges Of Dentistry And Pharmacy
Abstract:
Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional questionnaire-based study is to determine dental patients’ attitudes
toward and experiences with rubber dam (RD) isolation during endodontic or operative procedures at Riyadh
Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy Teaching Hospital.
Materials and Methods: A questionnaire comprising 12 questions was distributed to 120 patients after they
were treated using rubber dam isolation by final year students in the clinics of the Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry
and Pharmacy. The respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire immediately after the completion of
the procedure. The questions were designed to evaluate their attitudes toward and experiences with RD
isolation.
Results: Out of 120 questionnaire distributed, 95 (73 male, 22 female) were completed and returned.
The majority of the patients (80%) had never been treated using RD outside the Riyadh Colleges. A total of
71.6% of the patients were comfortable during treatment with the RD and 75.8% indicated preference for
treatment with it in the future. Protection from inhaling or swallowing foreign objects was the most commonly
mentioned advantage for the patients (93.6%), while the inability to rinse was the aspect of RD they expressed
the most frequent dislike. The only factor that had a statistically significant influence on patients' preference for
future treatment with RD was the degree of discomfort they experienced during treatment (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Patients experiences with and attitudes toward RD isolation during dental treatment were
positive, and most of them indicated a preference for treatment with it during future visits. Dentists and dental
students should educate their patients briefly about the importance and advantages of RD to achieve high levels
of acceptance.
Keywords: Rubber dam, isolation, attitude, acceptance
Abbreviation:
RD: Rubber Dam
I. Introduction
The use of rubber dam (RD) in endodontics and restorative dentistry is the only available way to
guarantee high-quality, safe, efficient, and successful treatment. For a long time, it has been considered the ideal
isolation tool, and working with RD during root canal treatment has been considered the standard of care. The
RD offers the practitioner a wide variety of advantages. These include infection control; the prevention of the
aspiration of fine instruments; the provision of a dry, clean operating field from which saliva, hemorrhage, and
other tissue fluids are isolated; improved visibility and access; and the protection and retraction of soft tissue
(lips, cheeks, tongue) that can disrupt operative procedures3,4. Clinicians are protected from litigation that would
result from aspiration or a patient’s swallowing of an endodontic file. Christensen et al.5 demonstrated that the
use of the RD helped to keep the operating field free of saliva and other contaminants, improving the quality of
restorative work and making patients more comfortable. The RD minimized patient conversation and the need
for frequent rinsing during treatment, which improved the efficacy of the dental procedure 5.
Although there is agreement regarding the importance of using RD, their actual usage is low among
dental practitioners worldwide6,7,8,9,10. The frequently reported reasons for this limited usage of RD during
endodontic and operative procedures include patient discomfort, insufficient time and training, cost, prolonged
treatment time, and lack of compliance on the patients part6,7,8. Lynch et al stated that these arguments have
been mentioned most often by those dentists who themselves do not use RD9. However, according to several
studies, the attitudes of patients toward RD were positive, and they showed high levels of acceptance10,11,12,13,14.
Their positive attitudes toward RD application could be linked to the proper explanation of its benefits, proper
application techniques, and short treatment times12. In the studies that investigated patients' attitude toward RD,
the majority of patients demonstrated high levels of acceptance and preferences for its use during their
subsequent appointments and in most of the cases they had positive experience with this isolation tool12,13,14.
The Experience And Attitude Of Saudi Patients Towards Rubber Dam…
DOI: 10.9790/0853-1604017074 www.iosrjournals.org 71 | Page
Most previous studies were directed at determining dentists and dental students' attitudes toward RD
usage, and little data was available about patients' attitudes toward and experiences with this method of
isolation. Hence, our study was directed at investigating patients' attitudes toward and acceptance of RD usage
during endodontic and operative procedures by final year dental students at the Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry
and Pharmacy.
II. Materials and Methods
This descriptive questionnaire-based study was approved by ethical committee of the research Center at
Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy. A closed-ended questionnaire comprising 12 questions was
prepared to determine what patients' experiences with RD isolation during dental treatment were. The patients
included had just undergone operative or endodontic treatment under RD isolation by final year dental students
at the Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy Teaching Hospital. The questionnaires were distributed to
120 patients, who were asked to complete them immediately then return them to one of the investigators. Each
patient received an explanation of the aim of the study and was informed that the data collected would be used
confidentially and the completion of the questionnaire would be considered to be consent for participation. Data
was collected and descriptive analysis was performed using version 20 of the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) to determine the patients’ levels of acceptance and future preference of RD and to correlate
these acceptance levels to different factors either associated with the patients (for instance, age or gender) or
with the clinical procedure performed (endodontic or operative, degree of discomfort experienced, first
experience with RD or having prior experience, and having received an explanation from the treating student or
not). The level of significance was selected 0.05.
III. Results
Out of 120 questionnaires distributed to the patients, only 95 (73 male and 22 female) were completed
and returned. The ages of the respondents ranged from 18 to 59 years, with a mean age of 36.4 years. The
majority of the patients (n = 76) had never been treated with RD outside the Riyadh Colleges (80%), and their
first experience with RD had occurred at the Riyadh Colleges Dental Clinics. Eighty-five patients (89.4%) stated
that they had already received a brief explanation of the benefits of using the RD during operative and
endodontic treatment from the treating student before the procedure began. When they were asked about their
comfort level during treatment with RD, sixty-eight of the respondents (71.6%) indicated that they were
comfortable during treatment with RD, while fourteen patients (14.7%) stated that they were uncomfortable
with it. Only nine patients (9.5%) indicated that it was painful for them (Table 1).
Table 1. Respondents' experiences and degree of comfort during treatment with RD
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Pleasant
4
4.2
Comfortable
68
71.6
Uncomfortable
14
14.7
Painful
9
9.5
Regarding the question of who benefitted more from the use of RD, seventy-one (74.7%) of the
patients believed that both dentists and patients benefitted from its use, while12.7% of them (n= 12) considered
the of use RD to be beneficial for the dentist only. Moreover,5.2% (n= 5) said that the procedure had no benefits
for both (Table 2).
Table 2. Respondents feelings regarding who benefitted more from RD usage
Benefits from RD Usage
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Dentist and Patient
71
74.7%
Dentist only
12
12.7%
Patient only
7
7.4%
No benefits for either
5
5.2%
For 43.3% of the patients (n=41), the inability to rinse during the procedure was the most frequent aspect of RD
isolation they did not like. The different aspects of RD usage they did not like are presented in table 3.
The Experience And Attitude Of Saudi Patients Towards Rubber Dam…
DOI: 10.9790/0853-1604017074 www.iosrjournals.org 72 | Page
Table 3. Aspects of RD isolation that the participants did not like
Aspects that participants did not
like
Frequency (n)
Pain
9
Inability to rinse
41
Difficulty breathing
12
Inability to communicate
17
Nausea
5
Length of time of application
28
Pain in the TMJ
3
When questioned about the aspects of RD isolation they considered beneficial, a high percentage of
respondents (93.6%) indicated that it protects from inhaling or swallowing foreign objects such as the
instruments used during the procedure. The aspects of RD isolation toward which they felt positively are
summarized in table 4.
Table 4. The advantages and benefits that respondents associated with the use of RD
The benefits of RD
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Reduced cross infection
54
56.8
Protection from inhalation or swallowing of
foreign objects
89
93.6
Protection from soft tissue injury
66
69.4
Prevention of accumulation of water in the
mouth
77
81
Protection of soft tissue from irritant
solutions and chemicals
73
76.8
Improved quality of restorations and
endodontic treatment
65
68.4
Regarding their preference for treatment under RD in future visits, seventy-two of the patients (75.8%)
indicated that they would prefer to be treated with it in the future, while twenty three patients (24.2%) did not
express this preference. Patients' preferences to future RD treatment in relation to age, gender and type of the
procedure is presented in table 5.
Table 5. Age, gender and procedure type in relation to patients preference to future treatment under RD.
N (%)
Prefer
N (%)
Don't
prefer
N (%)
Significance
"P value"
Gender
Male
73(76.85)
55 (75.34)
18 (24.66)
0.29
Female
22(23.15)
17(77.27)
5 (22.72)
Age groups
18-30
38(40)
30(78.94)
8(21.06)
0.09
31-44
41(43.15)
31(75.6)
10(24.4)
45>
16(16.85)
11 (68.75)
5(31.25)
Procedure
Operative
51(53.68)
38 (74.5)
13 (25.5)
0.86
Endodontic
44(64.32)
34 (77.3)
10(22.7)
Total
95 (100)
72 (75.8)
23(24.2)
Their recommendations to others, such as friends or relatives, regarding treatment with RD isolation
are presented in Table 6. Only five patients felt the use of RD is not necessary and they will not recommend its
use for others. The only factor that showed a statistically significant influence on patients' future preferences for
treatment with RD isolation was the degree of discomfort they experienced (P<0.05) during treatment with the
RD. Other factors, such as age, gender, type of procedure (endodontic or operative), first experience or having
prior experience, having received an explanation regarding RD, showed no statistically significant influence on
patients preference for RD usage in the future.
Table 6. Patients’ advice to their friends or relatives on the use of RD during dental treatment
Advice
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Highly recommended/ highly
necessary
4
4.2
Recommended / necessary
69
72.6
Optional
17
17.9
Not recommended / not necessary
5
5.2
The Experience And Attitude Of Saudi Patients Towards Rubber Dam…
DOI: 10.9790/0853-1604017074 www.iosrjournals.org 73 | Page
IV. Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate patients attitudes toward and acceptance of RD isolation
during operative and endodontic treatment. The bulk of the available data in the literature focuses on dentists'
and dental students' attitudes regarding the use of RD, but little data is available about patients acceptance of
and attitudes toward this method of isolation.
The patients included in this study were those treated by the final year dental student in Riyadh
Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy with either endodontics or operative dental procedure where the use of RD
is mandatory is such treatments. Typically, dentists who use RDs do not explain their benefits to their patients.
In rare cases, some patients refuse treatment with it due to misconceptions or bad experiences. Currently, dental
institutions worldwide teach the use of the RD as an important method of tooth isolation for most dental
procedures in adult and child patients. Ideally, dental study should explain to the patient the importance and
advantages of RD use before starting the procedure. About ninety percents of the patients in this study said they
have received this explanation. The majority of the patients in this study had never experienced treatment under
RD outside the Riyadh Colleges Dental Clinics. The results were similar to those of the studies of Kapitan11 and
Stewardson13. This may highlight a general point of low levels of RD usage in Riyadh city. One of the reported
barriers to the use of RD by dentists worldwide is patients’ discomfort and incompliance4,5 . The results of our
study and many other studies11,12,13 showed high levels of acceptance and positive attitudes towards treatment
with the RD isolation, especially when they were educated about its importance and benefits during treatment.
Based on these findings, we could say that lack of patient compliance is not an acceptable reason for not using
this tool of isolation during operative or endodontic procedures.
Patients in this study expressed high levels of acceptance and preference for future treatment under RD.
Similar results were evident in other studies that investigated patient attitudes toward RD isolation 10,11,12,13,14. In
our study, final year students undertook the application of RD. Given their experience level, it is expected that
they would require longer application times than expert practitioners. Furthermore, in most of the cases, the time
students spent completing a procedure usually longer than that which dentists would spend completing the same
procedure. This may lead us to expect higher levels of acceptance and preference regarding future treatment
with RD when more expert dentists perform the procedure. In Stewardson’s study13, patient preference for
future RD usage was lower when students treated the patients, and the author concluded that operator experience
improved patient compliance. In Kapitan’s study [11], the application time did not influence patients
acceptance. The only factor that was found in this investigation to influence patients preference for treatment
under RD in the future was the level of discomfort they experienced. Those who experienced discomfort or pain
during treatment expressed lower preferences for future treatment with RD. Same finding was reported by
Kapitan et al. Kapitan et al.11.
In our study, gender difference was found to have no statistically significant influence on patients'
acceptance of RD. These findings were in agreement with those of Kapitan’s study11, but in contrast to the
finding of Stewardson’s13 and Vadavathi’s12 studies, where females had higher levels of acceptance of RD. Age
was also found to have no influence on the level of acceptance; this was similar to the findings of Kapitan’s11
and Vadavathi’s12 studies but in contrast to the findings of Stewardson’s13. study where the preference for the
RD increased with the age of the patients. One of the limitations of this study is that it includes only patients
whom treated by students. Consequently, it did not evaluate the relation between operator experience and patient
acceptance of RD. Hence, it is recommended that investigations be undertaken to determine patients' attitudes
toward RD when general dentists or specialists with more clinical skills perform the treatment where the
application time and duration of the procedure are expected to be shorter than those associated with students
work.
V. Conclusion
Within the limitations of this study, patients generally demonstrated good acceptance levels and
positive attitudes toward the use of RD during operative or endodontic procedures done by final year students.
The majority of the patients preferred treatment with dental dams in the future and recommended it to their
friends or relatives. A short explanation of the importance and benefits of this isolation tool is very important for
the improvement of patient acceptance. Hence, any practitioner should carry it out routinely before RD
application. The degree of discomfort during treatment with RD isolation was found to have a statistically
significant influence on patients' preferences for future treatment with RD.
References
[1]. American Association of Endodondests: Appropriateness of care and quality assurance guidelines. 3rd ed., 1998, p16.
[2]. European Society of Endodontology. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of
Endodontology. International Endodontic Journal, 2006; 39: 921930.
[3]. Cochran MA, Miller CH, Sheldrake MA. The efficacy of the rubber dam as a barrier to the spread of microorganisms during dental
treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 1989; 119: 141-144
The Experience And Attitude Of Saudi Patients Towards Rubber Dam…
DOI: 10.9790/0853-1604017074 www.iosrjournals.org 74 | Page
[4]. Ahmad IA. Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: a review. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(11):963-72.
[5]. Christensen G.J. Using rubber dam to boost quality and quantity of restorative services. J Am Dent Assc. 1994; 125 : 81- 82
[6]. Marshall K, Page J. The use of rubber dam in the UK. A survey. Br Dent J. 1990; 169: 286-291.
[7]. Abraham SB, Rahman B, Istarabadi A, Ali Mahmoud AH, Danielle Q. Attitudes towards use of rubber dam in private practices in
the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Endodontic Journal, 2012; 2(3) 142-146
[8]. Jenkins SM, Hayes SJ, Dummer PM. A study of endodontic treatment carried out in dental practice within the UK. Int Endod J.
2001; 34: 16-22.
[9]. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ. Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners. International Endodontic Journal,
2007; 40: 42732.
[10]. Gergely EJ. Desmond Greer Walker Award. Rubber dam acceptance. Br Dent J. 1989; 167:249-252.
[11]. Kapitan M, Hodacova L, Jagelska J, Kaplan J, Ivancakova R, Sustova Z. The attitude of Czech dental patients to the use of
rubber dam. Health Expectations, 2015; 18:12821290
[12]. Vedavathi B, Sreenivasa Murthy, Roopa R Nadig, John V George. Patients’ Attitude to Rubber Dam: A Short-term Study. World
Journal of Dentistry, 2011;2(2):167-168
[13]. Stewardson, McHugh. Patients attitude to Rubber dam. International Endodontic Journal, 2002; 35:812-819
[14]. Jones CM, Reid JS. Patient and operators attitude toward Rubber Dam. Journal of Dentistry for Children, 1988; 55: 452-4
... Rubber dam is appraised as the standard for endodontic and restorative treatment because it provides patient protection, infection control and better treatment outcome. 9 This survey assessed the attitude of patients towards rubber dam. According to this study, middle aged patients were more receptive to reapplication of the dam for future endodontic use. ...
... According to Alamassi et al, 71.6% of the patients had comfortable experience with the rubber dam and 75.8% showed preference for procedure to be done with rubber dam in the future. 9 Limitation of this study was that this was a concise repeated study only exploring patient experience with operator experience. Not all factors that can directly or indirectly affect rubber dam application were explored. ...
Article
Background: Rubber dam is an indispensable tool to isolate teeth during dental treatment, but its application can be disagreeable for some patients. Aim: to determine the patient’s attitude to rubber dam use during endodontic procedures. Methods: Cross-sectional study was carried out in Operative Dentistry, Lahore Medical and Dental College, from 31st August 2021 to 21st October 2021. Using convenience sampling, 130 proformas were dispersed amongst house officers and postgraduate residents, who were performing endodontics under rubber dam. Questionnaires consisting demographic information, participant’s previous and current experience of rubber dam use, the treating doctor, time taken to apply rubber dam and duration of procedure. 126 completed forms were returned. Chi-square test was done for proportionate variables to determine statistical significance. Results: 46 patients (36.5%) answered their current experience was better with rubber application, 41 (32.5%) said about the same experience as compared to their previous rubber dam experience, and 11 (8.7%) had a worse current experience. Current experience of rubber dam use was: (i) pleasant/comfortable= 56 (44.4%), and (ii) uncomfortable/painful= 70(55.6%). The results further demonstrated that middle aged patients were more receptive to reapplication of the dam for future endodontic use. Statistically significant finding was that the postgraduate trainees applied the dam faster. Conclusion: Patient acceptance increased as the operator became more experienced, in lieu, more efficient in rubber dam placement. MeSH words: Rubber Dams, Endodontics, Patient
... On the other hand, overlapping with our results, Kapitan et al. (13) emphasized that patients with a higher level of comfort during rubber dam application would also prefer it in their future dental treatments. In previous research in Riyadh and Croatia, 75.8% and 69.1% of the patients, respectively, stated that they would prefer a rubber cover for their future dental procedures if a more experienced operator could perform it (14,15). Maslamani et al. also reported that 61% of their patients would prefer rubber dam applications for future dentist visits, which may be significantly related to patient acceptance and comfort during the application (16). ...
Article
Full-text available
Aims: The present study aimed to elicit the views of patients, applying to our faculty for dental treatment, on rubber dam application. Methods: We recruited 250 patients, who applied to Dicle University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry for dental treatment, in this study upon their informed consent. Following routine clinical and radiological examinations, the patients undergoing dental procedures with rubber dams were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their views on the application. Accordingly, while the patients’ characteristics and responses to the questionnaire are shown descriptively, we sought the relationships between the categorical variables using a chi-square test. All statistical analyses were performed on the IBM SPSS 25.0 program. Results: The findings revealed that rubber dams were applied to 85.6% of the patients for the first time. In this sense, the majority of the patients (86.8%) found the treatment with rubber dams more comfortable than their previous treatments. It was discovered that the patients were uncomfortable the most when being unable to communicate with the physician during the treatment. About half of the patients (52.8%) found the most comforting aspect of rubber dam application to be the absence of water accumulation in the mouths. Besides, we found a significant association between gender and the most disturbing aspect of rubber dam application. Accordingly, while 42.6% of the female patients reported having difficulty swallowing or breathing, 40% of the male patients reported being uncomfortable when being unable to rinse their mouth and communicate with the physician during the treatment. Finally, almost all patients (93.2%) stated that they would prefer rubber dam application on their next visit. Conclusion: Despite the advantages of rubber dam application, clinicians hold a belief that patients may be disturbed by the application for various reasons. Yet, our findings showed vice versa; most patients were not disturbed by the application, and even they would prefer it on their future visit. Thus, addressing rubber dam applications in undergraduate and postgraduate education would help improve patient comfort and the quality of dental procedures.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: This study aimed to measure patients' awareness levels about rubber dam used in endodontic treatments and their opinions about the necessity of its use, to evaluate their endodontic treatment experiences with rubber dam, and to compare the relationship between these opinions and treatment experience. Methods: A survey including 16-questions was designed to access the participants' demographic information and previous rubber dam experiences, their current experience, and their preferences for the use of rubber dams in subsequent treatments. 9 questions aimed to measure the attitude via five-point Likert scale indicating measurements ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The survey was completed when the number of participants reached 150 patients. Fisher-Freeman-Halton test, Fisher's Exact test and Pearson Chi Square test were used to compare categorical data, and multiple comparisons were examined with the Bonferroni Corrected Z test. p<0.05 was considered sufficient for statistical significance. Results: 27.3% of the participants had previously received dental treatment with rubber dam. It was determined that there were significantly more patients with primary education levels among those who did not know the benefits of rubber dam use before coming to treatment (p=0.013). There was a statistically significant connection between the question "I was informed by my dentist about the reasons for using rubber dam before the treatment" and the question "I think the use of rubber dam is necessary for the dentist/patient" (p<0.001). In this study, only 4 people were observed who did not prefer rubber dam for the next treatment. Conclusion: Before endodontic procedures, the advantages and necessity of rubber dam use should be explained to patients in detail and the questions in the patients' minds should be eliminated. The clinician should improve himself in the use of rubber dam and provide the patient with a more comfortable treatment.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: The benefits of rubber dam in dental practice are well known and it is accepted worldwide as a standard of care. In spite of this, rubber dam use is disregarded by most practicing dentists. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of rubber dam by private practitioners in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for operative and endodontic procedures and to assess dentists’ attitude towards the use of rubber dam. Materials and Methods: Three senior dental students of the University of Sharjah distributed 200 “closed” surveys among private clinics in the UAE. A total of 151 questionnaires was filled and returned. Data was entered into an electronic database (Microsoft Excel 2003) and the results were statistically analyzed through SPSS Statistics version 18. Results: 64.5% of dentists agreed that the use of rubber dam provides clearer access during restorative treatment and there was a higher clinical standard achieved. However, the majority of these dentists did not use the rubber dam in actual practice. Furthermore, 57.2% disagreed that they were not taught or had forgotten the use of rubber dam. It was also evident that there is less frequent use of rubber dam in the treatment of anterior root canals or restorations when compared to posterior. Conclusions: Dentists practicing in the UAE were trained in the use of rubber dam but few of them use it in their dental practice. These findings suggest the need to re‑enforce the rubber dam use in various clinical procedures for delivering a better standard of care and obtaining predictable outcomes.
Article
Full-text available
The most frequent arguments against rubber dam are that patients generally do not like it and the prolonged time of treatment. However, according to several studies, the attitude of patients towards rubber dam is rather positive. To find out the attitudes of patients to treatment with rubber dam; to determine influence of the circumstances of treatment or factors about patients; and to establish a mean time needed for rubber dam placement. A questionnaire survey. Patients of general dental practitioners, university clinical specialists and undergraduate dental students. A total of 179 questionnaires were distributed, from which 150 were returned. The mean time needed for rubber dam placement was 4 min for students and < 2 min for dentists. For 56% of patients, this had been their first experience with rubber dam. A total of 77% of patients indicated a higher level of comfort during treatment with rubber dam. A preference to the future rubber dam usage was indicated by 86% of patients. The preference to the further rubber dam usage was statistically significantly affected by the level of comfort during the treatment with rubber dam (P < 0.001) and by the sufficiency of explanation of reasons for rubber dam usage (P < 0.05). The other factors presented no statistically significant influence on patients' attitude to rubber dam usage. The attitude of patients to rubber dam was rather positive in our study. The time needed for rubber dam application was rather short.
Article
Rubber dam has been available to the dental profession for over 140 years. During this time, the use of rubber dam has been perfected, universally taught and recommended by professional organizations. Unfortunately, its consistent use has been rejected by many in the profession. The literature suggests that rubber dam is not used routinely by dental practitioners for root canal treatment. Many unfounded reasons have been cited for its lack of use, including concerns over patient acceptance, time required for application, cost of equipment and materials, insufficient training, difficulty in use and low treatment fees. Failure to use rubber dam has been shown to influence the choice of root canal irrigant, has a negative impact on treatment outcome and places the patient at risk of swallowing or aspirating materials and instruments. Methods to popularize rubber dam amongst general practitioners are discussed.
Article
The purpose of this survey was to determine the frequency of use of rubber dam isolation in the United Kingdom for both operative and endodontic procedures. Questionnaires were sent to 1800 dentists throughout the country, with 1008 returns (56%). Most replies were from dentists active in general dental practice. The use of rubber dam is largely neglected and more than 70% of all dentists surveyed did not utilise rubber dam for any procedure whatsoever.
Article
This study evaluated the rubber dam as an infection control barrier during standard restorative procedures. Microbial collection was performed during preparation and placement of amalgam and composite resin restorations with and without the rubber dam, and during handpiece and air-water syringe spraying with and without the rubber dam. The results showed a significant reduction in microorganisms with the use of the rubber dam--70% to 88% and 95% to 99%, respectively; and 90% to 98% when all data were combined. These results indicate that using the rubber dam is a method of reducing microbial contamination at the primary source. Used with gloves, mask, and protective eyewear, the rubber dam provides an excellent barrier to the potential spread of infectious disease in the dental office.
Article
The increasing reliance of modern dentistry on adhesive materials, has acted as a renewed incentive for the use of rubber dam. A safe, dry field in a comfortable patient, with the teeth and colored rubber dam contrasting, are the major advantages to the operator. Few articles have assessed the reactions of either the patient or the operator; in this study, it is accepted well.
Article
Rubber dam use for restorative dentistry is far too low. If practitioners realized rubber dam's advantages and increased treatment quality, its use would be irresistible. Few other dental procedures offer both an increase in operating speed and treatment quality. To save the most time, competent auxiliary staff should be taught to place rubber dams before the clinical procedure begins. (Additional information on rubber dam placement by auxiliary staff is available from Dr. Christensen.)
Article
The purpose of this study was to gather both qualitative and quantitative information on the nature of root canal treatment carried out by a group of dentists working within the United Kingdom. A two-part questionnaire was posted to 720 dentists who graduated from the Dental School, Cardiff, Wales, UK. The first part requested basic information regarding age, year of qualification, field of practice, etc. The second part consisted of 15 questions on endodontic practice and root canal treatment. The response rate was 41.5%. Two hundred and ninety-nine questionnaires contained useful information. The majority of practitioners did not use rubber dam during root canal treatment. The vast majority (89%) exposed a radiograph with an instrument of known length in situ to gauge the 'working length', a small number relied upon tactile sensation. Most practitioners used local anaesthetic solution as an irrigant during instrumentation of the root canal. A wide variety of instruments were used for root canal treatment; a stepback technique was preferred by almost half the practitioners. Antiseptic solution was preferred as an interappointment dressing. More than half of the respondents used laterally condensed gutta-percha to obturate root canals in anterior teeth but only one-third used the same technique in posterior teeth. Less than half the respondents exposed a radiograph to check the fit of the master point prior to obturation. Two-thirds of practitioners used a zinc oxide based material as their root canal sealer. Three-quarters of the practitioners exposed a post obturation radiograph. The results of this study suggest that although some dentists are using the techniques taught during their undergraduate careers, a large percentage now use techniques with no evidence of clinical effectiveness.