Trial reportOral health & preventive dentistry2026
Detection Efficacy of a Novel Disposable Dental Protective Device versus Medical Goggles in Reducing Splatter Exposure during Tooth Preparation: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2026. 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
objectiveThis randomised controlled trial compared a novel disposable dental protective device with traditional medical goggles regarding splatter interception, patient experience, and safety during tooth preparation.
methodsSeventy patients were allocated to use either the novel device (experimental group, n = 35) or medical goggles (control, n = 35) during standardised tooth preparation without suction. The primary outcome was the weight of captured splatter. Secondary outcomes included the total patient-reported outcome score derived from a seven-item, five-point Likert questionnaire and facial pressure sensation assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
resultsThe experimental group captured significantly more splatter (1.23 ± 0.35 g) than the control group (0.76 ± 0.21 g, mean difference 0.47 g, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.61, P 0.001). Patients rated the novel device significantly higher with regard to the total subjective score, material softness, hygiene, protection, comfort, and overall satisfaction (P 0.001), and reported lower facial pressure (VAS 1.80 ± 1.19 vs 4.50 ± 2.10, P 0.001). No serious adverse events occurred.
conclusionThe novel disposable device demonstrated superior splatter interception, better patient acceptance, and less facial pressure compared to medical goggles, showing promise for enhancing facial protection in dentistry.
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.