Evaluation of Anxiety Levels in Children While Using Rubber Dam and OptraDam Isolation Techniques
S Mahima, Karuna Y Mahabala, K Sudha, TM Maimoona, Anupama P Nayak
Keywords :
Anxiety, Children, Malondialdehyde, OptraDam, Rubber dam
Citation Information :
Mahima S, Y Mahabala K, Sudha K, Maimoona T, Nayak AP. Evaluation of Anxiety Levels in Children While Using Rubber Dam and OptraDam Isolation Techniques. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (2):287-291.
Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the anxiety levels in children while using rubber dam and OptraDam isolation techniques.
Materials and methods: This study was a crossover trial conducted on 27 selected 6–12-year-old children. The procedure of placement of either of the isolation techniques was told and demonstrated using audiovisual aid. The sequence of the proceedings on each child (rubber dam or OptraDam) was determined randomly using toss of coin. Second demonstration was carried out 7 days after the first demonstration. The anxiety experienced was recorded using Venham's anxiety scale at two time points—after verbal explanation and after the audiovisual demonstration. The study also objectively assessed the anxiety by measuring the salivary malondialdehyde (MDA) levels of two patients.
Results: When mean values of Venham's anxiety scores after verbal explanation and after audiovisual demonstration were compared for each of the two techniques using paired Student's t test, there was statistically significant decrease in the anxiety score following audiovisual demonstration in both the techniques. When the scores between two groups after verbal explanation and after audiovisual demonstration were compared using repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA), the reported anxiety scores were significantly lesser for the OptraDam technique (p = 0.000).
Conclusion: Audiovisual demonstration reduced the anxiety of children when compared to verbal explanation for both isolation techniques. OptraDam isolation was found to be less anxiety generating in children compared to rubber dam isolation.
Clinical significance: When using modern adhesive techniques, a good isolation of the working field is an important requirement for better prognosis. OptraDam being the latest addition to the rubber dam family, if found to be more children friendly can solve majority of the problems related to isolation in pediatric dentistry.
Ammann P, Kolb A, Lussi A, et al. Influence of rubber dam on objective and subjective parameters of stress during dental treatment of children and adolescents - a randomized controlled clinical pilot study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2013;23(2):110–115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01232.x
Smales RJ. Rubber dam usage related to restoration quality and survival. Br Dent J 1993;174(9):330–333. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808167
Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, et al. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investigations 2000;4(3):148–152. DOI: 10.1007/s007840000069
Samaranayake LP, Reid J, Evans D. The efficacy of rubber dam isolation in reducing atmospheric bacterial contamination. ASDC J Dent Child 1989;56(6):442–444.
Jinks GM. Rubber dam technique in pedodontics. Dent Clin North Am 1966;10:327–340. DOI: 10.1016/S0011-8532(22)01648-2
Kapitan M, Sustova Z, Ivancakova R, et al. A comparison of different rubber dam systems on a dental simulator. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 2014;57(1):15–20. DOI: 10.14712/18059694.2014.3
Feierabend SA, Matt J, Klaiber B. A comparison of conventional and new rubber dam systems in dental practice. Oper Dent 2011;36(3):243–250. DOI: 10.2341/09-283-C
Agarwal M, Das UM. Dental anxiety prediction using Venham Picture test: a preliminary cross-sectional study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013;31(1):22–24. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.112397
Bouayed J, Rammal H, Soulimani R. Oxidative stress and anxiety: relationship and cellular pathways. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2009;2(2):63–67. DOI: 10.4161/oxim.2.2.7944
Del Rio D, Stewart AJ, Pellegrini N. A review of recent studies on malondialdehyde as toxic molecule and biological marker of oxidative stress. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2005;15(4):316–328. DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2005.05.003
Subramanyam D, Gurunathan D, Gaayathri R, et al. Comparative evaluation of salivary malondialdehyde levels as a marker of lipid peroxidation in early childhood caries. Eur J Dent 2018;12(1):67–70. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_266_17
Sudha K, Rao AV, Rao S, et al. Lipid peroxidation hemolysis and antioxidant enzymes of erythrocytes in stroke. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 2004;48(2):199–205.
Kapitán M, Suchánková Kleplová T, Suchánek J. A comparison of three rubber dam systems in vivo–a preliminary study. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 2015;58(1):15–20. DOI: 10.14712/18059694.2015.86
Gilbert GH, Litaker MS, Pihlstrom DJ, et al. Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the Dental PBRN. Oper Dent 2010;35(5):491–499. DOI: 10.2341/09-287C
European Society of Endodontology. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 2006;39(12):921–930. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01180.x
American Association of Endodontists. AAE position statement: dental dams (Reaffirmed as of 2017). Available from https://www.aae.org/specialty/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/dentaldamstatement.pdf
Kapitán M, Šustová Z. The use of rubber dam among Czech dental practitioners. Acta Medica (Hradec Králové) 2011;54(4):144–148.
Anabtawi MF, Gilbert GH, Bauer MR, et al. Rubber dam use during root canal treatment: findings from The Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144(2):179–186. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0097
Hill EE, Rubel BS. Do dental educators need to improve their approach to teaching rubber dam use? J Dent Educ 2008;72(10):1177–1181.
Lynch CD, McConnell RJ. Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners. Int Endod J 2007;40(6):427–432. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01212.x
Marshall K. Rubber dam. Br Dent J 1998;184(5):218–219. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4809584
Filipović J, Jukić S, Miletić I, et al. Patient's attitude to rubber dam use. Acta Stomatol Croat 2004;38(4):319–322.
Reuter JE. The isolation of teeth and the protection of the patient during endodontic treatment. Int Endod J 1983;16(4):173–181. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1983.tb01321.x
Slaus G, Minoodt I, Bottenberg P. The rubber dam, a problem for the dentist or the patient? Rev Belge Med Dent 2005;60(4):301–309.
Madarati AA. Why dentists don't use rubber dam during endodontics and how to promote its usage? BMC Oral Health 2016;16:24. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-016-0175-2
Khandelwal D, Kalra N, Tyagi R, et al. Control of anxiety in pediatric patients using “tell show do” method and audiovisual distraction. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(9):1058–1064.
Mungara J, Injeti M, Joseph E, et al. Child's dental fear: cause related factors and the influence of audiovisual modeling. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013;31(4):215–220. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.121815
Soldani F, Foley J. An assessment of rubber dam usage amongst specialists in paediatric dentistry practising within the UK. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007;17(1):50–56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00796.x
Wambier LM, de Geus JL, Boing TF, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating rubber dam clamp pain reduction from a new topical liposomal anesthetic gel. Pediatr Dent 2018;40(3):190–194.
