单牙隔离中带翼与无翼橡胶坝夹的临床评价——一项随机临床研究。

Q2 Dentistry
Journal of Conservative Dentistry Pub Date : 2023-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-16 DOI:10.4103/jcd.jcd_647_22
Rohan Jiteshkumar Doshi, Nimisha Chinmay Shah, R S Mohan Kumar, Ruchi Shah, Niral Kotecha
{"title":"单牙隔离中带翼与无翼橡胶坝夹的临床评价——一项随机临床研究。","authors":"Rohan Jiteshkumar Doshi,&nbsp;Nimisha Chinmay Shah,&nbsp;R S Mohan Kumar,&nbsp;Ruchi Shah,&nbsp;Niral Kotecha","doi":"10.4103/jcd.jcd_647_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Retention of the rubber dam is done with metallic or nonmetallic clamps for isolation. The two types of metallic clamps most frequently used are winged and wingless. The clinical efficacy of both clamps is needed to be compared.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the postoperative pain and clinical efficacy of winged clamps and wingless metallic clamps in rubber dam isolation of permanent molars in class I restoration.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>After obtaining ethical approval and CTRI registration, a total of 60 patients with mild-to-moderate deep class I caries were included after obtaining informed consent and randomly allocated into two assigned groups: Group A - winged clamp and Group B - wingless clamp, with <i>n</i> = 30 per group. Local anesthesia was administered and the tooth was isolated using a rubber dam as per the standardized protocol. The postoperative evaluation was done for pain using the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) at 6 and 12 h; trauma to the gingival tissues, sealing ability of the clamp, and slippage of the clamp were evaluated using criteria for clinical evaluation of rubber dam isolation.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Independent <i>t</i>-test and Chi-square test were used to compare VRS and clinical parameters, respectively, with <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gingival trauma (<i>P</i> = 0.006) and postoperative pain were statistically significantly more in the wingless group at 6 h (<i>P</i> = 0.016) and 12 h (0.01). Statistically significant lower seepage of fluid (<i>P</i> = 0.017) was observed in the wingless group. Slippage was observed more with the winged group but was statistically insignificant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both clamps showed acceptable clinical performance. Their use should be planned as per the requisite of the case and the position of the tooth.</p>","PeriodicalId":38892,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conservative Dentistry","volume":"26 2","pages":"230-235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10190094/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical evaluation of winged versus wingless rubber dam clamps in single tooth isolation - A randomized clinical study.\",\"authors\":\"Rohan Jiteshkumar Doshi,&nbsp;Nimisha Chinmay Shah,&nbsp;R S Mohan Kumar,&nbsp;Ruchi Shah,&nbsp;Niral Kotecha\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jcd.jcd_647_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Retention of the rubber dam is done with metallic or nonmetallic clamps for isolation. The two types of metallic clamps most frequently used are winged and wingless. The clinical efficacy of both clamps is needed to be compared.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the postoperative pain and clinical efficacy of winged clamps and wingless metallic clamps in rubber dam isolation of permanent molars in class I restoration.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>After obtaining ethical approval and CTRI registration, a total of 60 patients with mild-to-moderate deep class I caries were included after obtaining informed consent and randomly allocated into two assigned groups: Group A - winged clamp and Group B - wingless clamp, with <i>n</i> = 30 per group. Local anesthesia was administered and the tooth was isolated using a rubber dam as per the standardized protocol. The postoperative evaluation was done for pain using the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) at 6 and 12 h; trauma to the gingival tissues, sealing ability of the clamp, and slippage of the clamp were evaluated using criteria for clinical evaluation of rubber dam isolation.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Independent <i>t</i>-test and Chi-square test were used to compare VRS and clinical parameters, respectively, with <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gingival trauma (<i>P</i> = 0.006) and postoperative pain were statistically significantly more in the wingless group at 6 h (<i>P</i> = 0.016) and 12 h (0.01). Statistically significant lower seepage of fluid (<i>P</i> = 0.017) was observed in the wingless group. Slippage was observed more with the winged group but was statistically insignificant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both clamps showed acceptable clinical performance. Their use should be planned as per the requisite of the case and the position of the tooth.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Conservative Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"230-235\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10190094/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Conservative Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_647_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Conservative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_647_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

上下文:橡胶坝的固定是用金属或非金属夹具进行隔离的。最常用的两种金属夹具是有翼和无翼。需要对两种夹具的临床疗效进行比较。目的:本研究的目的是评估和比较带翼夹和无翼金属夹在I类修复体中隔离永久磨牙橡胶坝的术后疼痛和临床疗效。材料和方法:在获得伦理批准和CTRI注册后,共有60名轻度至中度深部I类龋齿患者在获得知情同意后被纳入,并随机分为两组:a组-带翼夹和B组-无翼夹,每组n=30。进行局部麻醉,并根据标准化方案使用橡胶坝隔离牙齿。术后6小时和12小时使用言语评定量表(VRS)对疼痛进行评估;使用橡胶坝隔离的临床评估标准来评估牙龈组织的创伤、夹子的密封能力和夹子的滑动。统计分析:采用独立t检验和卡方检验分别比较VRS和临床参数,P<0.05。结果:无翼组在6小时(P=0.016)和12小时(0.01)时牙龈创伤(P=0.006)和术后疼痛具有统计学意义。无翼组的渗液量具有统计学意义(P=0.01 7)。有翼组的滑脱现象较多,但在统计学上不显著。结论:两种夹具均具有良好的临床性能。它们的使用应根据情况和牙齿的位置进行规划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Clinical evaluation of winged versus wingless rubber dam clamps in single tooth isolation - A randomized clinical study.

Clinical evaluation of winged versus wingless rubber dam clamps in single tooth isolation - A randomized clinical study.

Clinical evaluation of winged versus wingless rubber dam clamps in single tooth isolation - A randomized clinical study.

Clinical evaluation of winged versus wingless rubber dam clamps in single tooth isolation - A randomized clinical study.

Context: Retention of the rubber dam is done with metallic or nonmetallic clamps for isolation. The two types of metallic clamps most frequently used are winged and wingless. The clinical efficacy of both clamps is needed to be compared.

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the postoperative pain and clinical efficacy of winged clamps and wingless metallic clamps in rubber dam isolation of permanent molars in class I restoration.

Materials and methods: After obtaining ethical approval and CTRI registration, a total of 60 patients with mild-to-moderate deep class I caries were included after obtaining informed consent and randomly allocated into two assigned groups: Group A - winged clamp and Group B - wingless clamp, with n = 30 per group. Local anesthesia was administered and the tooth was isolated using a rubber dam as per the standardized protocol. The postoperative evaluation was done for pain using the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) at 6 and 12 h; trauma to the gingival tissues, sealing ability of the clamp, and slippage of the clamp were evaluated using criteria for clinical evaluation of rubber dam isolation.

Statistical analysis used: Independent t-test and Chi-square test were used to compare VRS and clinical parameters, respectively, with P < 0.05.

Results: Gingival trauma (P = 0.006) and postoperative pain were statistically significantly more in the wingless group at 6 h (P = 0.016) and 12 h (0.01). Statistically significant lower seepage of fluid (P = 0.017) was observed in the wingless group. Slippage was observed more with the winged group but was statistically insignificant.

Conclusion: Both clamps showed acceptable clinical performance. Their use should be planned as per the requisite of the case and the position of the tooth.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Journal of Conservative Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: The Journal of Conservative Dentistry (ISSN - 0972-0707) is the official journal of the Indian Association of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (IACDE). Our journal publishes scientific articles, case reports, short communications, invited reviews and comparative studies evaluating materials and methods in the fields of Conservative Dentistry, Dental Materials and Endodontics. J Conserv Dent has a diverse readership that includes full-time clinicians, full-time academicians, residents, students and scientists. Effective communication with this diverse readership requires careful attention to writing style.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信