↓ Skip to main content

Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
47 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009858.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Wang, Chunjie Li, He Yuan, May CM Wong, Jing Zou, Zongdao Shi, Xuedong Zhou

Abstract

Successful restorations in dental patients depend largely on the effective control of moisture and microbes during the procedure. The rubber dam technique has been one of the most widely used isolation methods in dental restorative treatments. The evidence on the effects of rubber dam usage on the longevity of dental restorations is conflicting. Therefore, it is important to summarise the available evidence to determine the effects of this method. To assess the effects of rubber dam isolation compared with other types of isolation used for direct and indirect restorative treatments in dental patients. We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 17 August 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7) in the Cochrane Library (searched 17 August 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 17 August 2016), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 17 August 2016), SciELO BIREME Virtual Health Library (1998 to 17 August 2016), Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM, in Chinese) (1978 to 30 August 2016), VIP (in Chinese) (1989 to 30 August 2016), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, in Chinese) (1994 to 30 August 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey and Sciencepaper Online (in Chinese) for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth trials) assessing the effects of rubber dam isolation for restorative treatments in dental patients. Two review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreement by discussion. We included four studies that analysed 1270 participants (among which 233 participants were lost to follow-up). All the included studies were at high risk of bias. We excluded one trial from the analysis due to inconsistencies in the presented data.The results indicated that dental restorations had a significantly higher survival rate in the rubber dam isolation group compared to the cotton roll isolation group at six months in participants receiving composite restorative treatment of non-carious cervical lesions (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37, very low-quality evidence). It also showed that the rubber dam group had a lower risk of failure at two years in children undergoing proximal atraumatic restorative treatment in primary molars (hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97, very low-quality evidence). One trial reported limited data showing that rubber dam usage during fissure sealing might shorten the treatment time. None of the included studies mentioned adverse effects or reported the direct cost of the treatment, or the level of patient acceptance/satisfaction. There was also no evidence evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on the quality of the restorations. We found some very low-quality evidence, from single studies, suggesting that rubber dam usage in dental direct restorative treatments may lead to a lower failure rate of the restorations, compared with the failure rate for cotton roll usage. Further high quality research evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on different types of restorative treatments is required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 183 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 20%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Other 12 7%
Other 48 26%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Unspecified 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Materials Science 4 2%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 35 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2020.
All research outputs
#442,769
of 15,094,232 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,168
of 11,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,698
of 267,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,094,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,108 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.