SUMMARYObjectivesTo evaluate the retention rates, gingival damage, and patients' preferences for adhesive restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) associated with the use of rubber dam vs cotton rolls/retraction cord isolation.MethodsThirty patients having one pair of similar NCCL on opposing sides of the same arch were enrolled in this study. A total of 60 restorations were placed. In each patient one restoration was placed under rubber dam isolation (RD) using dental retainers, and the other one was placed using cotton rolls/retraction cord (CR/RC) isolation. Dental residents with more than 10 years of clinical experience restored all NCCL using the same adhesive (GO!, SDI Limited, Bayswater, Australia) and composite resin (Ice, SDI). The patients' preferences were recorded. The gingival condition (bleeding, gingival laceration, and gingival insertion level) was evaluated immediately after the restorative procedure and after one week. Gingival sensitivity was also assessed one week after the end of the restorative procedures. The clinical time required to perform each restoration was recorded. The performance of the restorations was assessed using the FDI criteria at baseline and six, 12, and 18 months after clinical service. All criteria evaluated were submitted to appropriate statistical analysis (α=0.05).ResultsThe retention rates of the restorations at each recall time were not affected by the isolation method (p>0.05). No significant difference between isolation methods was found in regard to patients' preferences (p=0.86), gingival bleeding (p=0.57), laceration (p=0.64), insertion (p>0.52), gingival sensitivity (p=0.52), or chairside time (p=0.77).ConclusionsThe use of CR/RC was shown to be similar to the use of RD in terms of retention rates, patient's preference, gingival damage, and chairside time for adhesive restorations in NCCL.
Alternative Rubber Dam Isolation Technique for the Restoration of Class V Cervical Lesions