ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title No Difference in Class V Restorative Performance Success Using Either The Rubber Dam or Cotton Roll Isolation Techniques
Clinical Question For a patient needing a class V restoration, would the use of rubber dam isolation result in a better long-term restoration success than simple cotton roll isolation?
Clinical Bottom Line Through four clinical studies conducted between isolation and adhesive strategies, studies show that there is no significant difference in the performance of the class V restoration.
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 23534003Daudt/20134 studies/38 patientsNon-randomized controlled trial
Key resultsThere is no difference in the success of a class V restoration between the adhesive techniques or isolation techniques. Class V restorations perform equally well placed with or without rubber-dam techniques. The rubber-dam isolation technique was more uncomfortable for patients and resulted in short-term gingival recession.
Evidence Search class[All Fields] AND V[All Fields] AND restorations[All Fields] AND ("rubber dams"[MeSH Terms] OR ("rubber"[All Fields] AND "dams"[All Fields]) OR "rubber dams"[All Fields] OR ("rubber"[All Fields] AND "dam"[All Fields]) OR "rubber dam"[All Fields])
Comments on
The Evidence
Validity: The first non-randomized controlled trial conducted four various trials on 38 patients with sufficient information and time allowed to gather data. Two of the trails used rubber dam isolation while the other two used cotton roll isolation. Two examiners evaluated subjects at 5 different times. Study contains low to moderate risk of bias. The second non-randomized controlled trial studied 138 restorations placed on 38 patients using three different techniques ranging from the use of a rubber dam, rubber dam plus bevel, and no rubber dam. While all three restorations from all three groups had high retention rates, Group C that used no rubber dam had 100% restoration retention success. Perspective: Based on the results of this nonrandomized clinical trial, rubber dam isolation has no considerable advantages in improving the efficacy of a class V restoration in comparison to cotton roll isolation. Both studies show that it is possible that it is not the materials used but the skill of the dental practitioner in placing these restorations.
Applicability Dental practitioners are divided on whether the use of a rubber dam is better in isolating class V operative procedures. However, this study shows that restorations isolated with a rubber dam does are not better than those done with a cotton roll technique.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords Class V restorations, Rubber Dam isolation, Cotton roll isolation
ID# 2825
Date of submission: 03/22/2015spacer
E-mail chungtg@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Tiffany Chung
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author James Summitt, DDS, MS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail summitt@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
None available
spacer

Return to Found CATs list