Search

Aims To investigate the reported use of rubber dam isolation by UK general dental practitioners (GDPs), utilising an internet-mediated (SurveyMonkey) questionnaire reporting the demographic profile of respondents and the attitudes and factors influencing rubber dam use.Methods A piloted questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of GDPs in a private Facebook group, investigating respondent demographics, clinical applications, and attitudes towards and factors influencing rubber dam use. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics along with chi-squared and pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests.Results The response rate was 61%, with 403 valid completed questionnaires. Of these, 218 (54%) were female and 185 (46%) were male, with an age range of 23-72 years. Most of them (248; 62%) worked in mixed practices. The majority agreed that rubber dam aids placement of posterior restorations (311; 78%), provides clearer access (308; 76%), enables a higher clinical standard (355; 89%) and increases restoration longevity (257; 65%). Most agreed that proper isolation for root canal/operative procedures cannot be achieved without rubber dam use (329; 82%). Respondents disagreed with the following statements: root canal therapy completed without rubber dam isolation is as successful as those completed using rubber dam (338; 85%), rubber dam is difficult to apply (292; 73%) and rubber dam is disliked by patients (257; 64%). Respondents agreed that rubber dam use is influenced by clinical setting (259; 64%), procedure (390; 97%), choice of material being placed (382; 95%) and ease of application (337; 84%). Furthermore, 218 (54%) of the respondents expressed an interest in further training in rubber dam use.Conclusions This study provides greater insight into the attitudes and factors influencing rubber dam use, while demonstrating an interest in further training.

Aims To investigate the reported clinical applications of rubber dam isolation by UK general dental practitioners (GDPs) using an internet-mediated approach. Methods The data were collected in 2019, using an online (SurveyMonkey) questionnaire that was distributed to GDPs in a private group on Facebook. The percentages are based on the number of respondents who answered each question. Results The response rate was 61% with 403 valid completed questionnaires. The majority (395; 98%) of respondents reported using rubber dam in clinical practice. Undergraduate training in rubber dam use was received by 382 (98%) respondents, with greater training reported by younger, more recently qualified graduates. The main clinical applications of rubber dam included its use for composite restorations, endodontic treatments and internal bleaching procedures, while for other clinical procedures, the majority of respondents did not use rubber dam. For posterior and anterior composites, 332 (82%) and 298 (74%) respondents, respectively, reported using rubber dam isolation at least rarely. At least 98% (395) of the respondents used rubber dam for endodontic procedures, irrespective of tooth type and position. Over 70% (281) of respondents reported using rubber dam at least rarely for internal bleaching. Rubber dam was used by 99% (392) and 67% (262) of respondents on adults and paediatric patients, respectively. Conclusions The main clinical applications agree with previous reports, but highlight an increase in rubber dam use. This study investigated a wider range of clinical applications compared to previous studies, adding to the literature surrounding rubber dam use., Key points Part two of this study highlights the reported clinical applications of rubber dam by GDPs in the UK. This study identified an increased reported use of rubber dam by GDPs in the study population as well as an increased use with paediatric patients. The main clinical applications using rubber dam isolation included the provision of composite restorations, endodontic and internal bleaching treatments..