Question · asked by 1 review

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration): Restoration survival

Population
Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction)
Intervention
Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration)
Comparison
Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)
Outcome
Restoration survival

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva… may leads to higher survival rate of restorations (6 months) compared with cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) (low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 75%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)
Survival rate of restorations (6 months) · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction) · 6 months, Non-carious cervical lesions (composite restoration)
Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva… may leads to higher survival rate of restorations (6 months) compared with cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) (low certainty).
Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes
OR 2.29 [1.05, 4.99]2 studies · 192 participantsLow
Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)
Survival rate of restorations (18 months) · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction) · 18 months, Non-carious cervical lesions (composite restoration)
It is very uncertain whether rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva… changes survival rate of restorations (18 months) compared with cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) (very low certainty).
Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes
OR 1.00 [0.45, 2.25]1 study · 30 participantsVery low
Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)
Survival rate of restorations (24 months) · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction) · 24 months, Primary molars (proximal atraumatic restorative treatment)
It is very uncertain whether rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva… changes survival rate of restorations (24 months) compared with cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) (very low certainty).
Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes
HR 0.80 [0.66, 0.97]1 study · 559 participantsVery low
Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)
Survival rate of restorations (12 months) · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction) · 12 months, Non-carious cervical lesions (composite restoration)
It is very uncertain whether rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva… changes survival rate of restorations (12 months) compared with cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) (very low certainty).
Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes
OR 1.38 [0.45, 4.28]1 study · 30 participantsVery low

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients
2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
2021-01Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.