Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Nov-Dec;40(6):581-93.
doi: 10.2341/14-089-C. Epub 2015 Jul 9.

Influence of Isolation Method of the Operative Field on Gingival Damage, Patients' Preference, and Restoration Retention in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

A D Loguercio, I Luque-Martinez, A H Lisboa, C Higashi, V A Oliveira Queiroz, R O Rego, A Reis
Randomized Controlled Trial

Influence of Isolation Method of the Operative Field on Gingival Damage, Patients' Preference, and Restoration Retention in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

A D Loguercio et al. Oper Dent. 2015 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the retention rates, gingival damage, and patients' preferences for adhesive restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) associated with the use of rubber dam vs cotton rolls/retraction cord isolation.

Methods: Thirty patients having one pair of similar NCCL on opposing sides of the same arch were enrolled in this study. A total of 60 restorations were placed. In each patient one restoration was placed under rubber dam isolation (RD) using dental retainers, and the other one was placed using cotton rolls/retraction cord (CR/RC) isolation. Dental residents with more than 10 years of clinical experience restored all NCCL using the same adhesive (GO!, SDI Limited, Bayswater, Australia) and composite resin (Ice, SDI). The patients' preferences were recorded. The gingival condition (bleeding, gingival laceration, and gingival insertion level) was evaluated immediately after the restorative procedure and after one week. Gingival sensitivity was also assessed one week after the end of the restorative procedures. The clinical time required to perform each restoration was recorded. The performance of the restorations was assessed using the FDI criteria at baseline and six, 12, and 18 months after clinical service. All criteria evaluated were submitted to appropriate statistical analysis (α=0.05).

Results: The retention rates of the restorations at each recall time were not affected by the isolation method (p>0.05). No significant difference between isolation methods was found in regard to patients' preferences (p=0.86), gingival bleeding (p=0.57), laceration (p=0.64), insertion (p>0.52), gingival sensitivity (p=0.52), or chairside time (p=0.77).

Conclusions: The use of CR/RC was shown to be similar to the use of RD in terms of retention rates, patient's preference, gingival damage, and chairside time for adhesive restorations in NCCL.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Substances