Skip to main content
2024 AAPD Annual Meeting Main banner
Itinerary Planner Sponsored by Cheng Crowns
Information & Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Ticket Required
Ticket Required
Sold Out
Sold Out
Recorded Session
Recorded Session
Back
Rate ePoster
View ePoster

Patient Management

Isolation Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry: A Literature Review on Rubber Dam Versus the Isolite System

410 - Isolation Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry: A Literature Review on Rubber Dam Versus the Isolite System

Saturday, May 25, 2024
10:45 AM – 10:55 AM EST
Location: Exhibit Hall (back left corner of the hall, space 137)

    Presenting Author(s)

  • Luke Smith, DMD (he/him/his)

    Resident
    University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
    University of Kentucky College of Dentistry
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States

    • Research Mentor(s)

  • DS

    Debora Scheffel, DDS, MS, PhD

    Assistant Professor Division of Pediatric Dentisty
    University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States

    • Program Director(s)

  • Cristina Perez, DMD

    Assistant Professor Division of Pediatric Dentisty
    University of Kentucky College of Dentistry
    University of Kentucky
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States

Isolation Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry: A Literature Review on Rubber Dam Versus the Isolite System



Smith L, Perez C, Scheffel DLS

University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY



Background: Efficient isolation of the operative field is one of the most important factors for the success of several dental procedure, including resin-based restorations and sealants.

Purpose: This narrative literature review critically presents the existing literature on comparison between rubber dam (RD) and the isolite system (IS) to help dentists decide on the most appropriate isolation method for their patients.

Methods: A search on PubMed (MEDLINE) and the Cochrane Library was conducted using the terms “pediatric dentistry”, “rubber dam”, “isolite”, and “children”. Papers were included or excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data was descriptively analyzed.

Results: Thirty-seven papers were found via the literature search. After duplicates were removed and the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied, 3 clinical trials remained. Two studies assessed the chair time and satisfaction of patients treated with RD and IS and one compared the retention of sealants placed under the two systems. One study found chair time was lower for IS when compared to RD. While the other found similar chair time between the isolation methods. Patient satisfaction varied between 69% and 79% for IS. All the assessed methods were similar regarding sealants retention over time.

Conclusion: IS is a viable alternative to RD. Pediatric patients seem to find IS more comfortable than RD. RD may require longer chair time. RD and IS are similar regarding sealant retention over time.



Keywords: Isolation, Rubber Dam, Isolite, Pediatric Dentistry, Children