ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Comparative Evaluation of Ease of Operator and Patient Acceptability Using the Traditional Isolation System vs a New Isolation Tool (Intraoral Cheek and Lip Retractor Mouth Opener Tool).
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Isolation plays an important role in dentistry. It is mandatory to maintain isolation during various dental treatments. A simple new isolation tool (intraoral cheek and lip retractor mouth opener tool) is available, which is a multipurpose tool. The need for the study was to evaluate the functionality of the new isolation tool. Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the traditional isolation method with the new isolation tool. A questionnaire pattern was adopted for the present study. The study was then conducted to evaluate the patient acceptability and ease of access for the operator. Materials and methods: A total 200 pediatric patients were included in the study; they were divided into two groups. Group I-isolation with the new isolation tool, group II-isolation with cotton rolls and a mouth mirror. A structured questionnaire was given to the operators to evaluate the ease of use of the new isolation tool. A Likert scale was provided to the patients to evaluate the comfort of the new isolation tool during various treatments. Result: Statistical analysis shows significant results by obtaining the Conclusion: The study clearly shows that the new isolation tool is a better option in terms of retracting soft tissue, keeping the mouth open, and maintaining isolation. Clinical significance: This new tool helps in the retraction of soft tissue as well as isolation, and it also keeps the mouth open. How to cite this article: Chauhan KM, Sodani V, Sharma DJ,
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.