130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37408340)
1. A literature review of clinical efficiency, patient satisfaction, and future preference of Isolite and DryShield dental isolation systems among pediatric patients.
Bagher SM; Sabbagh HJ
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2023 Jul; 47(4):1-8. PubMed ID: 37408340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Efficiency and patient satisfaction with the Isolite system versus rubber dam for sealant placement in pediatric patients.
Alhareky MS; Mermelstein D; Finkelman M; Alhumaid J; Loo C
Pediatr Dent; 2014; 36(5):400-4. PubMed ID: 25303507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of fissure sealant retention rates using Isolite in comparison with rubber dam and cotton roll isolation techniques: A randomized clinical trial.
Mattar RE; Sulimany AM; Binsaleh SS; Hamdan HM; Al-Majed IM
Int J Paediatr Dent; 2023 Jan; 33(1):12-19. PubMed ID: 35543302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of Fissure Sealant Chair Time and Patients' Preference Using Three Different Isolation Techniques.
Mattar RE; Sulimany AM; Binsaleh SS; Al-Majed IM
Children (Basel); 2021 May; 8(6):. PubMed ID: 34070253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A study of the Isolite system during sealant placement: efficacy and patient acceptance.
Collette J; Wilson S; Sullivan D
Pediatr Dent; 2010; 32(2):146-50. PubMed ID: 20483019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Rubber dam may increase the survival time of dental restorations.
Keys W; Carson SJ
Evid Based Dent; 2017 Mar; 18(1):19-20. PubMed ID: 28338026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Use of rubber dam versus cotton roll isolation on composite resin restorations' survival in primary molars: 2-year results from a non-inferiority clinical trial.
Olegário IC; Moro BLP; Tedesco TK; Freitas RD; Pássaro AL; Garbim JR; Oliveira R; Mendes FM; ; Raggio DP
BMC Oral Health; 2022 Oct; 22(1):440. PubMed ID: 36217147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Isolite vs cotton roll isolation in the placement of dental sealants.
Lyman T; Viswanathan K; McWhorter A
Pediatr Dent; 2013; 35(3):E95-9. PubMed ID: 23756302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients.
Wang Y; Li C; Yuan H; Wong MC; Zou J; Shi Z; Zhou X
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Sep; 9(9):CD009858. PubMed ID: 27648846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The use of DryShield versus rubber dam isolation systems among pediatric patients with different airway patency: A randomized clinical trial.
Bagher SM; Bhadila GY; Alqahtani NH; Alharbi NH; Felemban OM
Saudi Dent J; 2024 Jun; 36(6):873-879. PubMed ID: 38883897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of the spatter-reduction effectiveness of two dry-field isolation techniques.
Dahlke WO; Cottam MR; Herring MC; Leavitt JM; Ditmyer MM; Walker RS
J Am Dent Assoc; 2012 Nov; 143(11):1199-204. PubMed ID: 23115148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of rubber dam on objective and subjective parameters of stress during dental treatment of children and adolescents - a randomized controlled clinical pilot study.
Ammann P; Kolb A; Lussi A; Seemann R
Int J Paediatr Dent; 2013 Mar; 23(2):110-5. PubMed ID: 22404253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. One year clinical evaluation of the retention and quality of two fluoride releasing sealants.
Ganss C; Klimek J; Gleim A
Clin Oral Investig; 1999 Dec; 3(4):188-93. PubMed ID: 10803133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations.
Raskin A; Setcos JC; Vreven J; Wilson NH
Clin Oral Investig; 2000 Sep; 4(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 11000319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Influence of rubber dam isolation on human pulp responses after capping with calcium hydroxide and an adhesive system.
de Lourdes Rodrigues Accorinte M; Reis A; Dourado Loguercio A; Cavalcanti de Araújo V; Muench A
Quintessence Int; 2006 Mar; 37(3):205-12. PubMed ID: 16536148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Does operatory field isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive restorations?
Daudt E; Lopes GC; Vieira LC
J Adhes Dent; 2013 Feb; 15(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 23534003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of fissure sealants retention following four different isolation and surface preparation techniques: four years clinical trial.
Lygidakis NA; Oulis KI; Christodoulidis A
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1994; 19(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 7865418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Direct bond brackets: cotton roll versus rubber dam isolation.
Heringer M; Almeida MA; Miguel JA
Angle Orthod; 1993; 63(3):231-4. PubMed ID: 8214793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Retention and effectiveness of fissure sealants in Kuwaiti school children.
Francis R; Mascarenhas AK; Soparkar P; Al-Mutawaa S
Community Dent Health; 2008 Dec; 25(4):211-5. PubMed ID: 19149297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Discordance between presumed standard of care and actual clinical practice: the example of rubber dam use during root canal treatment in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
Gilbert GH; Riley JL; Eleazer PD; Benjamin PL; Funkhouser E;
BMJ Open; 2015 Dec; 5(12):e009779. PubMed ID: 26656026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
