ArticleBritish dental journal2021
An internet-mediated investigation into the reported clinical use of rubber dam isolation by GDPs in the UK - part 2: clinical applications.
Article in British dental journal, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of a virtual rubber dam isolation training system in dental preclinical education.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Factors affecting the quality of endodontic treatment in general dental practice in Scotland: a qualitative focus group study.British dental journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims To investigate the reported clinical applications of rubber dam isolation by UK general dental practitioners (GDPs) using an internet-mediated approach.Methods The data were collected in 2019, using an online (SurveyMonkey) questionnaire that was distributed to GDPs in a private group on Facebook. The percentages are based on the number of respondents who answered each question.Results The response rate was 61% with 403 valid completed questionnaires. The majority (395; 98%) of respondents reported using rubber dam in clinical practice. Undergraduate training in rubber dam use was received by 382 (98%) respondents, with greater training reported by younger, more recently qualified graduates. The main clinical applications of rubber dam included its use for composite restorations, endodontic treatments and internal bleaching procedures, while for other clinical procedures, the majority of respondents did not use rubber dam. For posterior and anterior composites, 332 (82%) and 298 (74%) respondents, respectively, reported using rubber dam isolation at least rarely. At least 98% (395) of the respondents used rubber dam for endodontic procedures, irrespective of tooth type and position. Over 70% (281) of respondents reported using rubber dam at least rarely for internal bleaching. Rubber dam was used by 99% (392) and 67% (262) of respondents on adults and paediatric patients, respectively.Conclusions The main clinical applications agree with previous reports, but highlight an increase in rubber dam use. This study investigated a wider range of clinical applications compared to previous studies, adding to the literature surrounding rubber dam use.
Identifiers
What 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.