Assessment of Patient and Provider Satisfaction of Different Dental Isolation Methods

Objectives: To determine patient and provider satisfaction with three dental isolation methods which included two vacuum isolation systems; Isolite (Isolite Systems) and Izolation (Izolation) and a conventional isolation system; DermaDam (Ultradent)
Methods: The study was IRB-approved. Subjects were 15 patients recruited from the Graduate Operative Dentistry Clinic at UNC Chapel Hill, who required at least three direct restorations and agreed to participate in the study. Each restoration was completed by a graduate student, in a separate appointment using a different isolation method. Seven graduate students served as dental care providers for the study. Patient and provider satisfaction were assessed immediately after each treatment using a questionnaire with 8-9 items addressing comfort and satisfaction levels. The overall patient satisfaction score was set on a scale of 0-18 (0=least satisfied; 18=most satisfied), while the overall provider satisfaction score was set on a scale of 0-27 (0=least satisfied; 27=most satisfied). Data were summarized and analyzed using Friedman’s test.
Results: The median (IQR) overall patient satisfaction scores for Isolite, Izolation and DermaDam were 13 (10,18), 14 (10,18) and 15 (12,18)) respectively (p=0.72).The median(IQR) overall provider satisfaction scores for Isolite, Izolation and DermaDam were 26 (24,27), 24 (18,25) and 26 (24,27) respectively(p=0.03). Providers tended to give Izolation lower satisfaction ratings, ex. 25% of the responses were below 18, than either Isolite/Isodry or Derma Dam.
Conclusions: Patient satisfaction was not affected by isolation method. When the use of DermaDam was compared to Isolite and Izolation the providers found no difference in performance and overall satisfaction score. However, the comparison of the vacuum systems showed that the providers preferred Isolite over Izolation.