These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An Assessment of Direct Restorative Material Use in Posterior Teeth by American and Canadian Pediatric Dentists: II. Rubber Dam Isolation.
    Author: Varughese RE, Andrews P, Sigal MJ, Azarpazhooh A.
    Journal: Pediatr Dent; 2016 Nov 15; 38(7):497-501. PubMed ID: 28281955.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess usage, indications, and contraindications for rubber dam isolation (RDI) by pediatric dentists in Canada and the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based, self-administered survey was utilized to collect the opinions of all active pediatric dentist members of the Royal College of Dentists of Canada and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry on the use of direct restorative materials in posterior teeth (n equals 4,648; 19.3 percent response rate). The main survey also included a domain on the RDI utilization and its perceived indications and contraindications. Bivariate and multivariate analyses for RDI usage and its predictor were performed at two-tailed P<0.05. RESULTS: A response rate of 19.3 percent was obtained. Most participants (72.5 percent) reported using RDI "all the time." The material with the lowest usage of RDI was composite (82 percent) in the primary dentition and stainless steel crown (80.7 percent) in the permanent dentition. The three top-noted reasons for not using RDI included decreased trauma to the patient (66.2 percent), being able to prevent soft tissue from interfering without using RDI (55.9 percent), and decreased time for appointments (45.6 percent). CONCLUSION: Rubber dam isolation was valued by the majority of pediatric dentists when restoring primary and permanent dentition for all materials.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]