Pediatric Dental Patients’ Attitudes to Rubber Dam

Objectives: To explore young patients’ experiences of rubber dam (RD) and determine how personal and clinical factors may influence opinions. Study design: A self-completed questionnaire was developed to capture pediatric patients’ experiences of treatment under RD in a hospital setting. Patients’ acceptance of RD and perceptions of how well it was explained to them were recorded on a 10cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), where zero represented the most negative score. The following clinical variables were also recorded: type of RD; procedure undertaken; use of local anaesthetic and procedure duration. Results: One hundred children (52 male, 48 female) with a mean age of 11.8 years (SD=2.29; range 7-17 years) participated. Overall, acceptance of RD was satisfactory (mean VAS=5.0). Patients were happy with the explanation of why RD was used (mean VAS=7.7). The type of RD, use of local anaesthetic, procedure undertaken and duration of the procedure did not significantly influence acceptance levels. However, RD was significantly less acceptable to patients who underwent radiographic examination whilst wearing the RD (P< 0.05, t-test). Nearly five times as many patients expressed concern at being seen wearing RD when taken to the radiography department (39.2%, n=20/51), compared to those who were reportedly self-conscious about RD when treated only on the paediatric dentistry clinic (8.2%, n=4/49). Conclusions: The use of RD appears acceptable physically and psychologically to most pediatric patients, however, visibility of the RD to others was a potential concern to some children.

Rubber dam, children, acceptance

1. Abrams RA, Drake CW, Segal H. Dr Sandford C Barnum and the invention of the rubber dam. Gen Dent. 30: 320-2, 1982.

2. European Society of Endodontology (2006) Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J. 39: 921-930, 2006.

3. Cochran MA, Miller CH, Sheldrake MA. The efficacy of the rubber dam as a barrier to the spread of microorganisms during dental treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 119: 141-4, 1989.

4. Forrest WR, Perez RS. The rubber dam as a surgical drape: protection against AIDS and hepatitis. Gen Dent. 37: 236-7, 1989.

5. Jinks GM. Rubber dam technique for dentistry for children. J Dent Child. 17: 2-13, 1950.

6. Jones C, Reid J. Patient and operator attitudes towards rubber dam. J Dent Child. 55: 452-4, 1988.

7. Soldani F & Foley J. An assessment of rubber dam usage amongst special-ists in paediatric dentistry practising within the UK. Int J Paediatr Dent. 17: 50-56, 2007.

8. Mackie IC. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: management and root canal treatment of non-vital immature permanent incisor teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 8:2 89-293, 1998.

9. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on restorative pedi-atric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2005-2006; 27(7 Reference Manual): 122-129.

10. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and young permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 2005-2006; 27(7 Refer-ence Manual): 130-134.

11. Buchanan H, Niven N. Self-report treatment techniques used by dentists to treat dentally anxious children: a preliminary investigation. Int J Paediatr Dent. 13: 9-12, 2003.

12. Diercke K, Ollinger I, Bermejo JL, Stucke K, Lux C, Brunner M. Dental fear in children and adolescents: a comparison of forms of anxiety manage-ment practised by general and paediatric dentists. Int J Paediatr Dent. 22: 60- 67, 2012.

13. Bell SJ, Morgan AG, Marshman Z, Rodd HD. Child and parental accep-tance of preformed metal crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 11(5): 218-224, 2010.