What do systematic reviews say?

Electrical counter-stimulation device (DentalVibe) vs Conventional treatment (no stimulation)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA
  Acceptance of LA: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Electrical counter-stimulation device (DentalVibe) vs Conventional treatment (no stimulation)

It is very uncertain whether electrical counter-stimulation device (DentalVibe) changes self- or observational assessment of intraoperative… compared with conventional treatment (no stimulation) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA
  MD -1.34 [-2.35, -0.33]
  1 study · 100 participants
  Very low

Rubber dam vs Isolite system

• Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Pit and fissure sealing (permanent molars)
  Rubber dam may be associated with significantly lower satisfaction than the Isolite system but evidence very uncertain, mainly worse comfort (31%, P=0.02) and less preference (26%, P=0.002) (Alhareky 2014).
  1 study · 42 participants
  Very low

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

• Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Non-carious cervical lesions (composite restoration)
  Evidence did not support higher acceptance/preference for rubber dam than cotton rolls (P = 0.85 from binomial test on 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (Loguercio 2015).
  1 study · 28 participants
  Very low