ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
 |
| Title |
Isolite System Reduces Application Time of Pit and Fissure Sealants Compared to Cotton Roll Isolation |
| Clinical Question |
For a child needing dental sealants, will the use of the Isolite system decrease the time it takes for sealant placement when compared to cotton roll isolation? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
The Isolite System reduced the application time for placing dental sealants. |
| 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) 20483019 | Collette/2010 | 48 patients, between 5-14 years old | Split Mouth RCT | | Key results | The mean time for sealant placement using cotton roll isolation was 398±115 seconds compared to 340±71 seconds with Isolite (P≤.01). Time recorded was for two permanent ipsilateral molars. | |
| Evidence Search |
"Pit and Fissure Sealants"[Mesh] AND Isolite[All Fields] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
This RCT compared the use of the Isolite system (IS) to cotton roll isolation (CRI) on sealant placement time in 48 healthy children, ranging from 5-14 years old. Each patient received one maxillary and one mandibular sealant on the first permanent molar with both IS and CRI. Time was recorded from when the isolation method was placed into the oral cavity to when all instruments and isolation had been removed. It should be noted that the principal investigator both applied all sealants and recorded placement times for this study, which introduces the opportunity for bias. The long-term retention of the sealants was not evaluated, but would be an important factor in determining the value of the time saved. |
| Applicability |
With proper training of dental assistants and hygienists, the Isolite system may save time in a busy dental practice since it provides illumination and helps establish moisture control. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Pediatric Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
Isolite, Pit and Fissure Sealants
|
| ID# |
2229 |
| Date of submission: |
04/06/2012 |
| E-mail |
philipja@uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Judy Philip |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
David Cox, DDS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
CoxD@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 | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Matthew Gesell, Hohyun Ryou (San Antonio, TX) on 12/03/2017
A PubMed search conducted in November 2017 found no related evidence pertaining to the exact clinical question in this CAT. In order for research to gain clinical applicability, questions on patient preference should also be considered; and the quality of the sealant in terms of longevity and caries prevention should also be analyzed. | |
|
|
