Comparative Evaluation of Ease of Operator and Patient Acceptability Using the Traditional Isolation System vs a New Isolation Tool (Intraoral Cheek and Lip Retractor Mouth Opener Tool)

Keyur M Chauhan; Vasudha Sodani; Devdatt J Sharma; Harsh H Solanki; Reetu D Shah; Vaishnavi R Agarwal

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2854

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

Online First

Comparative Evaluation of Ease of Operator and Patient Acceptability Using the Traditional Isolation System vs a New Isolation Tool (Intraoral Cheek and Lip Retractor Mouth Opener Tool)

Keyur M Chauhan, Vasudha Sodani, Devdatt J Sharma, Harsh H Solanki, Reetu D Shah, Vaishnavi R Agarwal

Keywords : Ease of operator, Isolation, New isolation tool, Patient acceptability

Citation Information : Chauhan KM, Sodani V, Sharma DJ, Solanki HH, Shah RD, Agarwal VR. Comparative Evaluation of Ease of Operator and Patient Acceptability Using the Traditional Isolation System vs a New Isolation Tool (Intraoral Cheek and Lip Retractor Mouth Opener Tool). Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (6):637-640.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2854

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 22-08-2024

ARTICLE
REFERENCES

Abstract

Isolation plays an important role in dentistry. It is mandatory to maintain isolation during various dental treatments. A simple new isolation tool (intraoral cheek and lip retractor mouth opener tool) is available, which is a multipurpose tool. The need for the study was to evaluate the functionality of the new isolation tool. Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the traditional isolation method with the new isolation tool. A questionnaire pattern was adopted for the present study. The study was then conducted to evaluate the patient acceptability and ease of access for the operator. Materials and methods: A total 200 pediatric patients were included in the study; they were divided into two groups. Group I—isolation with the new isolation tool, group II—isolation with cotton rolls and a mouth mirror. A structured questionnaire was given to the operators to evaluate the ease of use of the new isolation tool. A Likert scale was provided to the patients to evaluate the comfort of the new isolation tool during various treatments. Result: Statistical analysis shows significant results by obtaining the p-value < 0.05. Conclusion: The study clearly shows that the new isolation tool is a better option in terms of retracting soft tissue, keeping the mouth open, and maintaining isolation. Clinical significance: This new tool helps in the retraction of soft tissue as well as isolation, and it also keeps the mouth open.

PDF Share

Behuria PN. Isolation of teeth in children: a review. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol 2020;14(4):9091–9094. DOI: 10.37506/ijfmt.v14i4.13160
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
Mittal R, Sharma M. Assessment of psychological effects of dental treatment on children. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(Suppl 1):S2–S7. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.95093
Alsarheed M. Children's perception of their dentists. European J Dent 2011;5(2):186–190.
Saha A, Kamatham R, Mallineni SK, et al. A cross-sectional survey on children perception of isolation methods for restorative procedures and influence of cognitive development. SRM J Res Dent Sci 2016;7(4):219–221. DOI: 10.4103/0976-433X.195623
Lygidakis NA, Oulis KI, Christodoulidis A. Evaluation of fissure sealants retention following four different isolation and surface preparation techniques: four years clinical trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1994;19(1):23–25.
Gilbert GH, Litaker MS, Pihlstrom DJ, et al. Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the dental PBRN. Operat Dent 2010;35(5):491–499. DOI: 10.2341/09-287C
Feierabend SA, Matt J, Klaiber B. A comparison of conventional and new rubber dam systems in dental practice. Operat Dent 2011;36(3):243–250. DOI: 10.2341/09-283-C

PDF Share