Page 16 - COS-FOD2015
P. 16

Ismail et al.




                thin  rubber  dam  and  glove  material  may  prema-  References
                turely  tear  away  or  at  least  break  free  from  the
                grippers making favorable measurements  impos-   1.  Bhavin Bhuva, Bun San Chong, Shanon Patel
                sible. The gripper grip-surfaces were the grooved   (2008)  Rubber Dam in Clinical Practice.  EN-
                                                                    DO (Lond Engl) ; 2(2):131-141.
                metal type, so to prevent  the samples from tear-
                                                                 2.  Timothy  A.  Svec,  John  M.  Powers,  G.  David
                ing,  a  layer  of  adhesive  cellophane  tape  were
                                                                    Ladd, and Trenholm N. Meyer (1996) Tensile
                stuck to them.  There were no observable occur-
                                                                    and Tear Properties of Dental Dam. Journal of
                rences of tearing of samples at the gripper inter-
                                                                    Endodontics. Vol. 2, No. 5.
                face.
                                                                 3.  I. A. Ahmad (2009) Rubber dam usage for en-
                Limitations of this study include the short period of
                                                                    dodontic  treatment:  a  review.    International
                time allocated, which was less than one year.
                                                                    Endodontic Journal, 42, 963–972.
                Furthermore only rubber dam and gloves tested
                                                                 4.  Patrick  Wahl,  Trevor  Andrews.    Isolation:  a
                were of latex.  Other materials  from Nitrile and
                                                                    look at the differences and benefits of rubber
                Vinyl may be included in future tests.
                                                                    dam  and  Isolite.  Endodontic  Practice,  Vol.  3

                                                                    No. 2, pp.52-55.
                Conclusion
                                                                 5.   European  Society  of  Endodontology  (2006)
                This study shows that there are significant differ-  Quality  guidelines  for  endodontic  treatment:
                ences  between  the  physical  strength  of  latex   consensus  report  of  the  European  Society  of
                gloves  when  compared  to  rubber  dam.    Even    Endodontology.    International  Endodontic
                though  the  findings  show  that  the  feasibility  of    Journal 39,  921–930.
                using  latex  hand  gloves  as  rubber  dam  is  not   6.   Francesca Soldani, Jennifer Foley  (2006)  An
                promising  based  on  their  tensile  strength  alone,   assessment  of  rubber  dam  usage  amongst
                the  findings  are  limited  to  the  brands  tested.    specialists  in  paediatric  dentistry  practising
                Hence, it may be  worthwhile to repeat this study    within the UK.  Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp.50
                using a more specific rubber tensile test machine   -56.
                or  using different material of gloves  before a de-
                                                                 7.  Petersson K, Olsson H, So¨derstrom C, Fouil-
                finitive  report  on  the  feasibility  of  using  hand
                                                                    loux I, Jegat N, Le´vy G (2002) Undergraduate
                gloves as rubber dam can be made.
                                                                    education  in  endodontology  at  two  European
                Acknowledgement                                     dental schools: a comparison between the Fa-
                                                                    culty  of  Odontology,  Malmo¨  University,  Mal-
                We would like to acknowledge the staff of Science   mo¨, Sweden and Faculty of Odontology, Paris
                Laboratory of Faculty of Dentistry UiTM especially   5 University (Rene´ Descartes), France. Euro-
                En Hizwan Nizam B. Abd Rahman and also Facul-       pean  Journal  of  Dental  Education  6,  176–
                ty  Applied  Science  Laboratory,  En  Mohd  Sofi  B.   81.
                Khalib for their  valuable support  and contribution
                in completing our research project.








                                                            12
   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21