ReviewInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Efficiency and Patient-reported Outcomes for Isolite System: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction/objectives: The Isolite system is a device designed for moisture control during dental procedures while improving access, visibility, and patient comfort. This systematic review evaluated the efficiency and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the Isolite system through a comprehensive analysis of randomized trials. Data sources: Electronic searches of Scopus, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science databases were conducted in March 2023 for relevant papers published in the English language. PROSPERO CRD42023428634. Study selection: Randomized studies that explored the efficacy and patient-centered outcomes of comfort and acceptance while using Isolite were included. Study quality was assessed based on the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A total of five studies that examined 170 patients were included in the review. Conclusion: The quality of evidence was rated as low due to the limited number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the high risk of bias in the included studies. Most studies reported that the Isolite system was as effective as rubber dams or cotton rolls for isolation and moisture control while reducing chair time. Patient comfort assessments indicated more participants favored the Isolite system with a significant reduction in the need to gag and a lower incidence of taste perception compared to cotton roll isolation. Based on the limited evidence available, there is low-level evidence that the Isolite system is as effective as traditional isolation techniques. Clinical significance: Isolite may offer advantages in terms of efficiency and patient comfort compared to conventional isolation techniques and has the potential to improve dental interventions, enhancing the overall dental experience for practitioners and patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023428634. How to cite this article: Siddalingappa D, Reddy V, Nayak AS,
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.