PATIENTS‘ AND GROUP‘S OF YOUNGER DENTISTS OPINION ON TREATMENT USING RUBBER DAM
Authors:
Y. Morozova; E. Míšová; P. Holík; I. Voborná
Authors‘ workplace:
Klinika zubního lékařství, Lékařská fakulta Univerzity Palackého a Fakultní nemocnice, Olomouc
Published in:
Česká stomatologie / Praktické zubní lékařství, ročník 119, 2019, 2, s. 36-43
Category:
Original articles
Overview
Introduction: Rubber dam is an indispensable tool for dentists. It serves to provide an absolute moisture control in the oral cavity, ensures complete isolation of the treated area from other parts of the oral cavity as well as from exhaled humid air. The use of rubber dam in modern dentistry is a prerequisite for a well-done procedures mainly in the field of aesthetics and patient protection during restorative and prosthetic treatment.
Objectives: The aim of the study was to find out, through original anonymous questionnaires, the opinion of patients and selected group of dentists on a treatment using rubber dam.
Methodology: Two types of original questionnaires (for patients and dentists) were created. In total, 77 questionnaires were distributed to patients. The questionnaires for dentists were prepared in a printed and online version. The printed form of the questionnaire was distributed to the dentists of the Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics as well as the Prosthetic Department of the Institute of Dentistry and Oral Sciences of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry of the Palacký University in Olomouc (totally 16), who daily perform treatment requiring rubber dam use. The online questionnaire was distributed via e-mail with a link to younger dentists from private dental offices in Olomouc Region. An online questionnaire was distributed to 113 dentists. After receiving of the completed questionnaires from patients and dentists, the evaluation, statistical processing and comparison of the survey results were performed (methods of descriptive statistics, χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.05).
Results: The return of patients questionnaires was 70.1%. Most of patients reported that treatment using rubber damwas more comfortable (72,2 %; χ2 test, p = 0,003) and professional (92,6 %) (χ2 test, p < 0.00001). The return rate of questionnaires from the dentists of the Institute of Dentistry and Oral Sciences was 100% and 56% from the private dentists. The total number of dentists in the group was 79. Most of the dentists (84.8%) in their daily practice use rubber dam. The length of clinical practice and gender did not have a statistically significant effect on the attitude to the use of rubber dam. There was no statistically significant difference between the use of rubber dam by dentists from the Institute of Dentistry and Oral Sciences and the private dentists (p = 0.737).
Conclusions: The results of the study showed a positive attitude of the patients to the treatment using rubber dam, most of them considered this type of treatment as more pleasant and professional. Dentists of younger age group use rubber dam in their regular practice. The gender of dentists, the length of clinical practice and the type of practice (private practice, university clinic) have no statistically significant effect on the frequency of the treatment with rubber dam.
Keywords:
questionnaire – moisture control – rubber dam – dental treatment
Sources
1. Abrams RA, Drake CW, Segal H, Sanford C. Barnum and the invention of the rubber dam. Gen Dent. 1982; 30(4): 320–322.
2. Shashirekha G, Jena A, Maity AB, Panda PK. Prevalence of rubber dam usage during endodontic procedure: a questionnaire survey. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8(6): ZC01–ZC03.
3. Stejskalová J et al. Konzervační zubní lékařství. 2. vydání. Praha: Galén, 2008.
4. Ahmad IA. Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: A review. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(11): 963–972.
5. Ahmed HM, Cohen S, Lévy G, Steier L, Bukiet F. Rubber dam application in endodontic practice: an update on critical educational and ethical dilemmas. Aust Dent J. 2014; 59(4): 457–463.
6. Baumann M. Endodontology. 2. vydání. Stuttgart: Thieme, 2008.
7. Keys W, Carson SJ. Rubber dam may increase the survival time of dental restorations. Evid Based Dent. 2017; 18(1): 19–20.
8. Madarati A, Abid S, Tamimi F, Ezzi A, Sammani A, Al Shaar MBA, Muhammad Z. Dental-dam for infection control and patient safety during clinical endodontic treatment: preferences of dental patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15(9): 2012.
9. Wang Y, Li C, Yuan H, Wong MC, Zou J et al. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 20(9): CD009858.
10. Peciuliene V, Rimkuviene J, Aleksejuniene J, Haapasalo M, Drukteinis S, Maneliene R. Technical aspects of endodontic treatment procedures among Lithuanian general dental practitioners. Stomatologija Baltic Dental Maxillofacial J. 2010; 12(2): 42–50.
11. Cochran MA, Miller CH, Shieldrake MA. The efficacy of the rubber dam as a barrier to the spread of microorganisms during dental treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 1989; 119(1): 141–144.
12. Burki Z, Watkins S, Wilson R, Fenlon M. A randomised controlled trial to investigate the effects of dehydration on tooth colour. J Dent. 2013; 41(3): 250–257.
13. Ročenka ČSK 2015. [cit. 1. 12. 2018]. Dostupné na http://i.pupiq.net/a/e/e/df/df/972941/CSK_rocenka_2015_web.pdf
14. Ročenka ČSK 2017. [cit. 1. 12. 2018]. Dostupné na https://img.dent.cz/a/e/e/a69/a69/1516415/Rocenka_2017.pdf
15. Udoye CI, Jafarzadeh H. Rubber dam use among a subpopulation of Nigerian dentists. J Oral Sci. 2010; 52(2): 245–249.
16. Kapitán M, Šustová Z. The use of rubber dam among Czech dental practitioners. Acta Medica (Hradec Králové). 2011; 54(4): 144–148.
17. Anabtawi MF, Gilbert GH, Bauer MR, Reams G, Makhija SK, Benjamin PL et al. Rubber dam use during root canal treatment: findings from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144(2): 179–186.
18. Soldani F, Foley J. An assessment of rubber dam usage amongst specialists in paediatric dentistry practising within the UK. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2007; 17(1): 50–56.
19. Jenkins SM, Hayes SJ, Dummer PMH. A study of endodontic treatment carried out in dental practice within the UK. Int Endod J. 2001; 34(1): 16–22.
20. 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 Expect. 2015; 18(5): 1282–1290.
21. Stewardson DA, McHugh ES. Patient's attitudes to rubber dam. Int Endod J. 2002; 35(10): 812–819.
22. Kapitán M, Suchánková Kleplová T, Suchánek J. A comparison of three rubber dam systems in vivo – A preliminary study. Acta Medica. 2015; 58(1): 15–20.
23. Filipović J, Jukić S, Miletić I, Pavelić B, Malčić A, Anić I. Patient's attitude to rubber dam use. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2004; 38(4): 319–322.
24. Madarati AA. Why dentists don't use rubber dam during endodontics and how to promote its usage? BMC Oral Health. 2016; 16(24): 1–10.
Labels
Maxillofacial surgery Orthodontics Dental medicineArticle was published in
Czech Dental Journal
2019 Issue 2
Most read in this issue
- ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETE DENTURE FABRICATION
- PATIENTS‘ AND GROUP‘S OF YOUNGER DENTISTS OPINION ON TREATMENT USING RUBBER DAM
- 3D FACIAL MORPHOMETRY IN PATIENS WITH OCULO-AURICULO-VERTEBRAL SPECTRUM
- PODMÍNKY PRO PUBLIKACI V ČASOPISU „Česká stomatologie a Praktické zubní lékařství“