ArticleTexas dental journal2013
Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the dental PBRN.
Article in Texas dental journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Feasibility of OptraDamDentistry journal · 2025Article
- Attitude and knowledge of isolation in operative field among undergraduate dental students.European journal of dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Reprint of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rubber dam use during operative dentistry procedures has been quantified based on questionnaires completed by dentists. However, based on the knowledge of the authors of the current study, there are no reports based on use during actual clinical procedures other than in dental materials studies and none based on routine care. The objectives of the current study were to: 1) quantify how commonly the rubber dam is used during operative dentistry procedures; 2) test the hypothesis that certain dentist, restoration and patient-level factors are associated with its use. A total of 229 dentist practitioner-investigators in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) participated. DPBRN comprises 5 regions: Alabama/Mississippi, Florida/Georgia, Minnesota, Permanente Dental Associates; and Scandinavia. Practitioner-investigators collected data on 9,890 consecutive restorations done in previously unrestored tooth surfaces from 5,810 patients. Most dentists (63%) did not use a rubber dam for any restoration in this study. A rubber dam was used for only 12% of restorations, 83% of which were used in 1 DPBRN region. With regions accounted for, no other dentist characteristics were significant. A multi-level multiple logistic regression of rubber dam use was done with restoration and patient-level variables modeled simultaneously. In this multi-variable context, these restoration-level characteristics were statistically significant: tooth-arch type, restoration classification and reason for placing the restoration. These patient-level characteristics were statistically significant: ethnicity, dental insurance, and age. These results, obtained fromactual clinical procedures rather than questionnaires, document a low prevalence of usage of the rubber dam during operative dentistry procedures. Usage varied with certain dentist, restoration, and patient level characteristics.
Identifiers
23767163W1981196776What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.