A literature review of clinical efficiency, patient satisfaction, and future preference of Isolite and DryShield dental isolation systems among pediatric patients

This review aims to summarize and analyze previous studies that evaluated the clinical efficiency, patient satisfaction, and future preference of Isolite System Isolation (ISI) and DryShield System Isolation (DSI) and compare them to other forms of isolation during dental treatment in children. Both authors independently searched engines using the keywords “Isolite”, “Vacuum”, “DryShield” and their combinations in March 2022. The inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed articles written in English and clinical trials that assessed the clinical efficiency, patient satisfaction, and future preference of ISI or DSI during dental treatment on healthy unaffected children and compared it to other isolation systems such as rubber dam and cotton roll. A total of five articles were included, and data were extracted by both authors independently and compiled into one single table.Five clinical trials were identified. The use of both ISI and DSI systems is associated with more noise, requires less chair time, is more comfortable, and is preferred by more children than rubber dam or cotton ball isolation.The review reports promising results in clinical efficiency, patient satisfaction, and future preference for both Isolite and DryShield isolation systems. Both systems require less chair time and were preferred by pediatric patients for future dental treatment when compared to both rubber dam and cotton roll isolation systems. Less fluid leaking and gagging reflex were reported when compared to cotton roll isolation. When compared to rubber dam isolation, they were associated with less discomfort.

Efficiency; Cotton roll; DryShield; Isolite; Retention; Patient satisfaction; Preference; Rubber dam

[1] American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on patient safety. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. (pp. 164–168). Chicago, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 2022:176-80.

[2] Cameron SM, Whitlock WL, Tabor MS. Foreign body aspiration in dentistry: a review. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1996; 127: 1224–1229.

[3] Kuo SC, Chen YL. Accidental swallowing of an endodontic file. International Endodontic Journal. 2008; 41: 617–622.

[4] Ammann P, Kolb A, Lussi A, Seemann R. Influence of rubber dam on objective and subjective parameters of stress during dental treatment of children and adolescents—a randomized controlled clinical pilot study. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2013; 23: 110–115.

[5] Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations—a meta-analysis. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2012; 14: 407–431.

[6] Muller-Bolla M, Lupi-Pegurier L, Tardieu C, Velly AM, Antomarchi C. Retention of resin-based pit and fissure sealants: a systematic review. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2006; 34: 321–336.

[7] Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, Wilson NH. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2000; 4: 148–152.

[8] Terry DA. An essential component to adhesive dentistry: the rubber dam. Practical Procedures & Aesthetic Dentistry. 2005; 17: 106–108.

[9] Lygidakis NA, Oulis KI, Christodoulidis A. Evaluation of fissure sealants retention following four different isolation and surface preparation techniques: four years clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 1994; 19: 23–25.

[10] Slawinski D, Wilson S. Rubber dam use: a survey of pediatric dentistry training programs and private practitioners. Pediatric Dentistry. 2010; 32: 64–68.

[11] Soldani F, Foley J. An assessment of rubber dam usage amongst specialists in paediatric dentistry practising within the UK. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2007; 17: 50–56.

[12] Lynch CD, McConnell RJ. Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners. International Endodontic Journal. 2007; 40: 427–432.

[13] Maslamani M, Mitra A. Factors associated with patients’ satisfaction of rubber dam use during root canal treatment. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2018; 29: 144–149.

[14] Silverstone LM. Fissure sealants. Preventive Dentistry. 1978; 39: 97–132.

[15] Alhareky MS, Mermelstein D, Finkelman M, Alhumaid J, Loo C. Efficiency and patient satisfaction with the Isolite system versus rubber dam for sealant placement in pediatric patients. Pediatric Dentistry. 2014; 36: 400–404.

[16] Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Medicine. 2010; 8: 18.

[17] Jørgensen L, Paludan-Müller AS, Laursen DRT, Savović J, Boutron I, Sterne JAC, et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2016; 5: 80.

[18] Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ. 1999; 318: 593–596.

[19] Bagher SM, Allaf H, Khogeer L, Felemban O. Patient satisfaction and preference with dry shield vs rubber dam isolation among pediatric patients. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2021; 9: 82–90.

[20] Collette J, Wilson S, Sullivan D. A study of the Isolite system during sealant placement: efficacy and patient acceptance. Pediatric Dentistry. 2010; 32: 146–150.

[21] Lyman T, Viswanathan K, McWhorter A. Isolite vs cotton roll isolation in the placement of dental sealants. Pediatric Dentistry. 2013; 35: E95–E99.

[22] Mattar RE, Sulimany AM, Binsaleh SS, Al-Majed IM. Comparison of fissure sealant chair time and patients’ preference using three different Isolation techniques. Children. 2021; 8: 444.

[23] Merkel S. Pain assessment in infants anf young children: the finger span scale. The American Journal of Nursing. 2002; 102: 55–56.