ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Investigation of Aerosol Generation and Exposure Risk During Access Cavity Preparation With or Without Rubber Dam Application.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Feasibility of OptraDamDentistry journal · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAerosols generated during dental procedures have taken the forefront of discussion in dentistry. Due to the nature of their work, dental professionals face a significant risk of exposure to various biological hazards, such as saliva, blood, aerosols, and droplets. Aerosols, which are tiny particles with a diameter of less than 50µm, have a unique property that allows them to stay suspended in the air for extended periods. This is primarily due to their small size and lightweight nature which makes them highly susceptible to air currents and prevents them from quickly settling down. As a result, these aerosols can linger in the atmosphere, creating a potential risk for respiratory infections.
aimThe aim is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of rubber dams in preventing aerosols generated cross-contamination. METHODS AND MATERIAL: This in-vivo experimental study comprised 60 individuals who were suggested for root canal treatment in the mandibular first permanent molar tooth. The passive air sampling technique using "settle plates" was applied to investigate microbial fallout during access opening with and without rubber dam application. Sheep blood agar plates were used to do the colony forming unit (CFU) count. All patients were randomly divided into two groups comprising 30 patients each based on usage of rubber dam application or not, i.e., Group I: Without rubber dam application and Group II: With rubber dam application.
resultsUsing a rubber dam while performing an endodontic procedure significantly impacts decreased aerosol generation at 0.5-m and 2-m distances than its counterpart with a p-value < 0.01.
conclusionUsing a rubber dam during endodontic procedures reduces the likelihood of aerosol generation, thereby decreasing the risk of cross-contamination and lowering the susceptibility of dental professionals to respiratory illnesses.
Indexed as
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.