EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT INTRAOPERATIVE PATIENT PREFERENCE FACTORS ON SUB-GINGIVAL CLAMPS VERSUS RETRACTION CORD PLACEMENT IN NON-CARIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS

S KHAN; N PARVEEN; T ASHAR; A GHAFFAR; T MOMIN; I ZAFAR

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.562

Authors

S KHAN Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan, Pakistan.
N PARVEEN Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan, Pakistan.
T ASHAR Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan, Pakistan.
A GHAFFAR Department of Paedodontics, Operative Dentistry, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan, Pakistan
T MOMIN Department of Operative Dentistry, CMH, Multan, Pakistan
I ZAFAR Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.562

Keywords:

Cervical Lesion, Rubber Dam, Gingival Health, Retraction Cord, Patients' Preference, Sub-Gingival Clamp, Technique Sensitivity

Abstract

This study aimed to compare two gingival displacement and isolation techniques: rubber dam with sub-gingival clamps and retraction cord with cotton rolls. The study also assessed the factors influencing patients' preference for one method, including the need for anesthesia, gingival bleeding, gingival laceration, post-operative spontaneous sensitivity, and time consumption. The study was conducted as a randomized control trial with 34 patients, each with one pair of comparable non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) on opposing sides of the same arch. A total of 68 restorations were placed, with each patient receiving one restoration using a retraction cord with cotton rolls (RC/CR) and the other using a rubber dam (RD) with sub-gingival clamps. Four dentists with at least five years of clinical experience under the supervision of two dental consultants with more than 14 years of clinical experience carried out the procedures to ensure uniformity in technique and assessment. The preferences of the patients were noted, and gingival bleeding, gingival laceration, spontaneous sensitivity, time consumed to apply RD and RC/CR, and the need for anesthesia were recorded immediately after the procedure. Two weeks later, gingival laceration and gingival bleeding were assessed again. Statistical analysis was performed on each criterion evaluated using a t-test, Chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney test with a significance level of P ≤ 0.05. The results showed statistically significant differences between the RD group and the RC/CR group in terms of patients' preference (P=0.0000), post-operative gingival laceration (P=0.0032), need for anesthesia (P=0.0000), and time of application (P=0.0000). 76% of patients preferred rubber dams with sub-gingival clamps. Gingival laceration, discomfort, and increased time of application were recorded in the RC/CR group. Spontaneous sensitivity reported by patients post-operatively (P=0.7204), gingival tissue laceration assessed after two weeks (P=1.0000), and gingival bleeding assessed immediately (P=0.6891) and in follow-up visits (P=1.0000) were insignificant in both groups. In conclusion, patients preferred rubber dam with sub-gingival clamps due to more comfort, lesser gingival tissue injury, and lesser time of application.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abuzenada, B. M. (2021). Attitude of dental students towards the rubber dam use in operative dentistry. Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences 13, S637.

Beleidy, M., and Serag Elddien, A. M. (2020). Clinical comparative evaluation of different retraction systems in gingival displacement and their influence on periodontal health: A randomized clinical trial. Egyptian Dental Journal 66, 1667-1678.

Bennani, V., Aarts, J. M., and Brunton, P. (2020). A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords and aluminum chloride paste. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 32, 410-415.

Daudt, E., Lopes, G. C., and Cardoso Vieira, L. C. (2013). Does operatory field isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive restorations? Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 15.

Faraoni, J. J. Treatment outcome for dentin hypersensitivity with laser therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Favetti, M., Montagner, A. F., Fontes, S. T., Martins, T. M., Masotti, A. S., dos Santos Jardim, P., Corrêa, F. O. B., Cenci, M. S., and Muniz, F. W. M. G. (2021). Effects of cervical restorations on the periodontal tissues: 5-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Dentistry 106, 103571.

Goodacre, C. J., Eugene Roberts, W., and Munoz, C. A. (2023). Noncarious cervical lesions: Morphology and progression, prevalence, etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical guidelines for restoration. Journal of Prosthodontics 32, e1-e18.

Gupta, S., Sharma, A., Jain, P., Sain, P., Tikkiwal, S., and Bansal, R. (2020). A Comparative Study of Aluminum Chloride Retraction Cords and Expasyl as Gingival Retraction System. International Journal of Community Health & Medical Research 6.

GUTIÉRREZ, M. F., and MARTINI, E. C. (2020). Dentin moisture does not influence postoperative sensitivity in posterior restorations: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Dent 33, 206-212.

Haekkinen, L., UITTO, V. J., and Larjava, H. (2000). Cell biology of gingival wound healing. Periodontology 2000 24, 127-152.

Joshi, B., Gautam, S., Joshi, R., and Khapung, A. (2023). Attitude and practice of dental interns towards the use of rubber dam in different dental colleges of Kathmandu. Nepal Medical College Journal 25, 7-12.

Jurado, C. A., Fischer, N. G., Sayed, M. E., Villalobos-Tinoco, J., Tsujimoto, A., and Sayed, M. (2021). Rubber Dam Isolation for Bonding Ceramic Veneers: A Five-Year Post-Insertion Clinical Report. Cureus 13.

Loguercio, A., Luque-Martinez, I., Lisboa, A., Higashi, C., Queiroz, V. O., Rego, R., and Reis, A. (2015). Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients' preference, and restoration retention in noncarious cervical lesions. Operative dentistry 40, 581-593.

Mahn, E., Rousson, V., and Heintze, S. (2015). Meta-analysis of the influence of bonding parameters on the clinical outcome of tooth-colored cervical restorations. J Adhes Dent 17, 391-403.

Merchant, A., Ganapathy, D. M., and Maiti, S. (2022). Effectiveness of local and topical anesthesia during gingival retraction: Anesthesia during cord packing. Brazilian Dental Science 25.

Peumans, M., Politano, G., and Van Meerbeek, B. (2020). Treatment of noncarious cervical lesions: when, why, and how. Int J Esthet Dent 15, 16-42.

Sarmento, H., Leite, F., Dantas, R., Ogliari, F., Demarco, F., and Faot, F. (2014). A double‐blind randomised clinical trial of two techniques for gingival displacement. Journal of oral rehabilitation 41, 306-313.

Sengupta, D. A., and Pandit, D. V. Dr. Pooja Rubber Dam”. International Journal of Current Research.

Shehab Eldin, N., Shaalan, O., and Ibrahim, S. (2021). ASSESSMENT OF TECHNIQUE SENSITIVITY AND GINGIVAL HEALTH IN MANAGEMENT OF CERVICAL LESIONS PERFORMED USING SUBGINGIVAL CLAMP VERSUS RETRACTION CORD: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL. Egyptian Dental Journal 67, 1663-1676.

Telang, L. A., Telang, A., Nerali, J., and Pradeep, P. (2019). Tori in a Malaysian population: Morphological and ethnic variations. Journal of forensic dental sciences 11, 107.

Veitz‐Keenan, A., Spivakovsky, S., Lo, D., Furnari, W., and ElSayed, H. (2019). Adhesive restorations for the treatment of dental non‐carious cervical lesions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019.

Wong, M. C., Zou, J., Zhou, X., Li, C., and Wang, Y. (2021). Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.