S A Feierabend1, J Matt, B Klaiber. 1. Department of of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany. stefanie.feierabend@uniklinik-freiburg.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rubber dam is an important tool in dentistry-in the past as well as today. As a result of a lack of acceptance of the conventional system, introduced by Barnum in 1869, new systems were developed (eg, OptraDam® by Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). This system was advertised as being very comfortable and easy to use, without distracting clamps. The aim of this study was to investigate if a new rubber dam system would be better accepted by patients and dentists than the conventional one. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred patients from the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology received at least one treatment with the conventional rubber dam (Dental Dam, Coltène Whaledent, Langenau, Germany) and one with the new rubber dam (OptraDam®, Ivoclar Vivadent). Staff/students and patients were asked to complete questionnaires with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of the particular system after every treatment. RESULTS: Among patients, students, and dentists in the dental school environment there is a high degree of acceptance of rubber dam in general. During the study there were only very few situations in which neither of the systems could be used. The conventional rubber dam was preferred by all patients, students, and dentists (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that there is a high degree of acceptance of the rubber dam when it is compulsory to use. The reasons for the refusal during the daily workload of a practice remain unclear, but appear to be independent of the material or design available. A new design does not necessarily imply better acceptance.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Rubber dam is an important tool in dentistry-in the past as well as today. As a result of a lack of acceptance of the conventional system, introduced by Barnum in 1869, new systems were developed (eg, OptraDam® by Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). This system was advertised as being very comfortable and easy to use, without distracting clamps. The aim of this study was to investigate if a new rubber dam system would be better accepted by patients and dentists than the conventional one. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred patients from the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology received at least one treatment with the conventional rubber dam (Dental Dam, Coltène Whaledent, Langenau, Germany) and one with the new rubber dam (OptraDam®, Ivoclar Vivadent). Staff/students and patients were asked to complete questionnaires with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of the particular system after every treatment. RESULTS: Among patients, students, and dentists in the dental school environment there is a high degree of acceptance of rubber dam in general. During the study there were only very few situations in which neither of the systems could be used. The conventional rubber dam was preferred by all patients, students, and dentists (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that there is a high degree of acceptance of the rubber dam when it is compulsory to use. The reasons for the refusal during the daily workload of a practice remain unclear, but appear to be independent of the material or design available. A new design does not necessarily imply better acceptance.