Influence of Different Rubber Dam Application on Intraoral Temperature and Relative Humidity

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of type of rubber dam and application method on the moisture exclusion effect. The intraoral temperature and relative humidity were compared among various moisture exclusion appliances. Various dry field techniques were applied to 5 subjects and intraoral temperature and relative humidity measured 5 min after placing a digital hygro-thermometer in the mouth. The relative humidity was 100% in all subjects when moisture was excluded by means of cotton rolls alone. When only tooth 36 was exposed, relative humidity was significantly lower with latex, urethane, or 3-dimensional sheets than with cotton rolls alone, and was similar to the level of humidity in the room. When a local rubber dam was used, the relative humidity was significantly higher than the indoor humidity (p<0.05). No significant differences were noted in the intraoral temperature or relative humidity between exposure of 4 teeth and 1 tooth, but variation in the relative humidity was more marked in 4-than in 1-tooth exposure. The creation of an air vent did not influence the moisture exclusion effect. These results suggest that the rubber dam isolation technique excludes moisture to a level equivalent to the humidity in the room when only a single tooth is exposed, but the moisture exclusion effect may be inconsistent when several teeth are exposed.

Clinical observation of the tooth surface during air-drying of self-etching primer under 3D video microscope

“…Relative humidity at molar sites is close to 100 % [9][10][11]. Resin bonding in a high humidity environment has been reported to reduce bond strength [11,12,39].…”

“…Alternatively, rubber dam isolation is effective in reducing the relative humidity of the operating field [9]. However, when multiple teeth are simultaneously isolated, it might be difficult to control the relative humidity of the operating field using a rubber dam [10]. We used an intra-oral vacuum device (Coolex Mini-alpha) in all 100 cases.…”

“…However, insufficient air-drying of self-etching primer could leave residual solvent that could subsequently cause incomplete polymerization of the bonding resin. While some manufacturers provide instructions about the duration of air-drying, the extent of the removal of the solvent might be affected by several factors, such as the quality of the dry-field technique/isolation, the site and form of the cavity, because oral cavity is very humid [9,10], and therefore it is difficult to remove the solvent by air-drying [11]. Although there are many factors that affect solvent removal [11][12][13][14][15], the actual duration required for solvent evaporation in the clinical situation has not yet been established.…”

Properties of Composite Resin Alkasit and Zirconia-Reinforced Glass-Ionomer Cement in Different Storage

“…7,8 The mechanical properties of restorative material are also influenced by the polymerization and hardening processes, which is influenced by both intrinsic (e.g., material composition) and extrinsic (e.g., temperature and moisture) factors. 4,9 In the clinical situation, the use of rubber dam can cause changes in the temperature and humidity during filling, however, temperature and saliva in the oral cavity can also affect the restorative materials after the rubber dam is released. The difference of this condition is thought to affect the mechanical properties of the restorative material because some materials are sensitive to environmental changes.…”

“…The difference of this condition is thought to affect the mechanical properties of the restorative material because some materials are sensitive to environmental changes. 9 However, information is needed on the effects of environmental changes during the initial 24 hours in different storage on the mechanical properties of alkasite restorative materials and zirconiareinforced GIC.…”