Comparative Evaluation of Two Isolation Techniques for Proximal Restorations: A Clinical Controlled Study
Arushi Goel, Khushboo Barjatya
Keywords :
Class II restorations, Isolation, Primary tooth, Rubber dam
Citation Information :
Goel A, Barjatya K. Comparative Evaluation of Two Isolation Techniques for Proximal Restorations: A Clinical Controlled Study. J South Asian Assoc Pediatr Dent 2023; 6 (3):105-108.
Introduction: Successful restorations depend on number of factors, but perhaps the most important one is isolation. However, achieving it in a pediatric patient is the biggest challenge. Despite rubber dam being the gold standard for isolation, it is not being used commonly in children. MiniDam by DMG is a comparatively recent advancement that is being used to compare with conventional rubber dam for their isolation efficiency and patient's attitude.
Materials and methods: A sample size of 30 patients with a minimum of two proximal lesions bilaterally requiring glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations was selected. Selected patients were treated in two appointments under rubber dam and MiniDam per appointment. They were evaluated for time for placement, isolation efficacy, child's behavior, and pain perception.
Conclusion: It was concluded that both materials have their merits and demerits, but mini dam has better patient compliance and comparable isolation efficacy.
Walia T, Kirthiga M, Brigi C, et al. Interproximal contact areas of primary molars based on OXIS classification–a two centre cross sectional study. Wellcome Open Res 2021;5:285. DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16424.2
Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, et al. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112(2):188–196. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00117.x
Wang Y, Li C, Yuan H, et al. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;5:CD009858. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub2
Chadwick BL, Evans DJ. Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007;8(1):14–21. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262565
Toh SL, Messer LB. Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2007;29(1):8–15. PMID: 18041507.
Roshan D, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG. Changes in dentists’ attitudes and practice in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2003;4(1):21–27. PMID: 12870984.
Sanghvi AM, Nagda RJ, Raju PJ. A cross-sectional study on frequency of rubber dam usage among dentists practicing in Maharashtra, India. Saudi Endod J 2018;8(1):39. DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_92_16
Sehgal PR, Dixit UB. Use of MiniDam for isolation in restoration of proximal carious lesion acta scientific. Dent Sci 2019;5(3):105–109.
Bhuva B, San Chong B, Patel S. Rubber dam in clinical practice. Endod Pract Today 2008;2(2). DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub3
Ryan W, O'Connell A. The attitudes of undergraduate dental students to the use of the rubber dam. J Ir Dent Assoc 2007;53(2):87–91. PMID: 17685058.
Lynch CD, McConnell RJ. Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners. Int Endod J 2007;40(6):427–432. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01212.x
Harrel SK, Molinari J. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry: a brief review of the literature and infection control implications. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135(4):429–437. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0207
Cohen S, Schwartz S. Endodontic complications and the law. J Endod 1987;13(4):191–197. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80139-5
Ahmad IA. Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: a review. Int Endod J 2009;42(11):963–972. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01623.x
