Journal vol.4 no.1 abstract2 of The Japan Health Care Dental Association

The Journal of The Japan Health Care Dental Association Vol.4 No.1, 2002
abstract

Toru Naito, Yoshihiro Suga, Yoshiaki Nomura, Yoshihiro Toyoshima, Shozo Fujiki, Makoto Yokota

It is widely mentioned that rubber dam protects teeth under treatment from moisture such as saliva, and is the very effective method of defending that from the invasion of bacillus. Especially, it is assumed as an indispensable method of endodontic treatment. Moreover, this method indicates higher effectiveness in the resin restoration. However, in the revision of the medical treatment fee under the health insurance system, which is executed in April, 2000, the environment of applying this rubber dam method in clinical stage becomes more severe than ever viewing from the fact that the calculation of rubber dam on the resin restoration becomes not accepted as the calculation base of insurance applicability. One of such reasons is considered that the number of such dental clinics that are extend this rubber dam method constantly is considerably little. However, the investigation to clarify the actual status of applying this rubber dam method which has an appropriate object and proper collection rate was not yet implemented so far. In this connection the reality of this method applying is not clarified by now. With regard to this situation, we have executed our investigation to clarify the actual status of applying the method and the reason why this method is not used on the base of questionnaires given to the members of the Japan Health Care Dental Association. The investigation was carried out by the method to give questionnaires mailed to 1124 member dentists and researchers. (Sending questionnaires on March 18th 2001 and the answer collection time limit was set on May 18th May). The answers were collected from 448 members, and the successful collection rate was indicated as 39.9%. As a result of this investigation, it was clarified that the one who answered, "rubber dam is applied currently" was 51.1% and one who answered "Applied on almost every day" was answered in the percentage of 22.5%. While the answer "Several-times in a week" was 13.8% and "several-time in a month" was answered in 6.2%. Regarding the time of use, the answer "during endodontic treatment" occupied the largest share of 66.1%. The next position was occupied by "Accidental mis-deglutition prevention on the treatment for infants". Between the relations of cases of using the application and non-using, there are no difference observed among the differences of sex, age, clinical experience years, and number of patients daily treated and the chair time per patient. Furthermore there were no differences observed between the types of clinical education received at the university either. However, some relative relation was observed between the ratio of rubber dam execution and diagnosis that are not applied insurance. On the other hand, regarding the reason of not using rubber dam, the highest share was marked with the reason "Because of annoyingness" (34.3%) and the next position was occupied with the reason of "Because patients dislike it" (18.8%). Regarding the expectation on the effect achieved when rubber dam was applied, a big difference was admitted between the members of "rubber dam was applied" and "rubber dam is not applied". Among the members who answered "rubber dam is applied", 67.2% of them answered to indicate their expectation that "Result of treatment in teeth is expected to be improved" by applying rubber dam, while only 40.7% of the one who answered "rubber dam is not applied", made the same answer "Result of endodontic treatment is expected to be improved" The difference of both was statistically significant.