Trial reportThe journal of adhesive dentistry2025
Impact of Various Moisture Control Methods on Intraoral Humidity.
Trial report in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis prospective crossover clinical study evaluated the effectiveness of different moisture control methods on intraoral humidity and examined the influence of external environmental humidity. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty adult participants (31 females, 9 males; mean age 36.6 ± 11.3 years) were enrolled. Intraoral relative humidity was measured above anterior and posterior teeth under four randomized conditions: control (mouth breathing), rubber dam isolation, vacuum-assisted isolation (ZOO), and saliva ejector. External humidity was recorded simultaneously and categorized as high (≥60%) or low (60%).
resultsBoth rubber dam isolation and vacuum-assisted isolation significantly reduced intraoral humidity compared with the saliva ejector and control. Under low external humidity, rubber dam and vacuum-assisted isolation achieved the lowest intraoral humidity (all P 0.001). Under high external humidity, all methods reduced humidity compared with control, but vacuum-assisted isolation remained significantly more effective than the rubber dam and saliva ejector. External humidity showed a strong correlation with intraoral humidity in the rubber dam group (ρ up to 0.77, P 0.001).
conclusionMoisture control methods differ in their ability to reduce intraoral humidity, with rubber dam and vacuum-assisted isolation providing the most effective reduction. However, high external humidity significantly increases intraoral humidity regardless of the isolation method, indicating that clinicians should consider both the isolation strategy and environmental conditions when aiming to minimize intraoral humidity.
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.