Abstract
BACKGROUND
The authors evaluated the effects of three dry-field techniques (rubber dam, Isolite i2 [Isolite Systems, Santa Barbara, Calif.] and Coolex [APT, Osaka, Japan]) on intraoral temperature and relative humidity (RH), compared with the effects of a nonisolated control on intraoral temperature and RH.
METHODS
The authors measured the room's temperature and RH and then placed dry-field devices in five participants' mouths and measured the intraoral temperature and RH for 20 minutes. They then removed the devices or turned off the vacuum system and measured intraoral temperature for an additional five minutes.
RESULTS
The authors found no significant differences in either intraoral temperature or RH at any time during the measurement period in the isolated control group (P > .05); the intraoral temperature was more than 30°C and RH was more than 95 percent. On the other hand, the use of dry-field techniques significantly reduced both intraoral temperature and RH when the rubber dam was in place or the vacuums were turned on (P > .05). The intraoral temperature and RH gradually increased after the authors removed the rubber dam or turned off the vacuums.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study revealed that all three dry-field techniques could reduce both temperature and RH effectively.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Both Isolite i2 and Coolex could provide environments similar to the room conditions used during in vitro specimen preparation for investigating the mechanical properties of dental restorative materials.
Collapse