A comparison of conventional and new rubber dam systems in dental practice.

OBJECTIVE: Rubber dam is an important tool in dentistry-in the past as well as today. As a result of a lack of acceptance of the conventional system, introduced by Barnum in 1869, new systems were developed (eg, OptraDam® by Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). This system was advertised as being very comfortable and easy to use, without distracting clamps. The aim of this study was to investigate if a new rubber dam system would be better accepted by patients and dentists than the conventional one. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred patients from the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology received at least one treatment with the conventional rubber dam (Dental Dam, Coltène Whaledent, Langenau, Germany) and one with the new rubber dam (OptraDam®, Ivoclar Vivadent). Staff/students and patients were asked to complete questionnaires with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of the particular system after every treatment. RESULTS: Among patients, students, and dentists in the dental school environment there is a high degree of acceptance of rubber dam in general. During the study there were only very few situations in which neither of the systems could be used. The conventional rubber dam was preferred by all patients, students, and dentists (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that there is a high degree of acceptance of the rubber dam when it is compulsory to use. The reasons for the refusal during the daily workload of a practice remain unclear, but appear to be independent of the material or design available. A new design does not necessarily imply better acceptance.

[Pain drawings of patients with orofacial pain. Comparison of acceptance and gain of information]. / Schemata zur Schmerzeinzeichnung bei Patienten mit orofazialen Schmerzen. Vergleich von Akzeptanz und Informationsgehalt.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this prospective multicentric study was to compare two different types of pain drawings in terms of acceptance and gain of information in patients with orofacial pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 204 patients from 9 centers, who visited their dentist or physician for orofacial pain, received two different diagrams for pain drawings in random order. One was the original pain diagram of the Deutsche Schmerzfragebogen (German Pain Questionnaire, diagram A), and the other diagram had been developed to achieve a symmetrical representation of the body and to allow computer-assisted analysis (diagram B). This diagram was larger and contained a drawing of the head. The patients' answers were analyzed for the preference between diagrams, the number and distribution of pain areas, and the concordance between the diagrams. The results were correlated with the patients' data. RESULTS: Data from 183 patients could be analyzed: 100 of 183 patients preferred diagram B and 57 of 183 preferred diagram A, independent of gender, age, or duration of disease. Most patients reported pain in more than one area; in only 43 of 183 patients was the pain limited to the face and head. The number and distribution of pain areas were not different between the two pain diagrams. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed head and body diagrams can be used in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with orofacial pain without fear of placing excessive demands on the patients and are useful for detecting comorbidities.