Abstract
Purpose: There are unfavorable opinions connected with rubber dam isolation amongst dental students during adhesive restorative treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate the various barriers to practicing rubber dam isolation during dental procedures and provide necessary insight towards implementation of rubber dam among undergraduate dental students in Jazan.
Materials and methods: A pre-validated questionnaire in English entitled Rubber Dam Isolation Survey (E-RDIS) based on the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model of behavioral change wheel was responded by 226 university dental students.
Results: The satisfaction of training was highest among sixth year students (Mean=3.57, p<0.001). Fourth year dental students scored higher in the capability (Mean=3.18) and were more highly motivated to use rubber dams (Mean=4.21). Third year students were more likely to use rubber dams in anterior teeth (Mean=3.52) whereas fourth year students use rubber dam in posterior teeth (Mean=3.74). Lack of motivation was found to be the significant barrier influencing rubber dam usage (odds ratio (OR)=12.1; 3.74, p<0.05).
Conclusion: The satisfaction with training differed among the students of different years. The rubber dam technique might be used more frequently if it were made clear to students that mastering it would be necessary for them to receive good grades.
Keywords: com-b, adhesive restoration, barriers, undergraduate students, rubber dam isolation
Introduction
Pit and fissure sealants are the preferred choice among various restorative materials due to their effectiveness in preventing further caries, efficient bonding to the tooth interface, and superior remineralization properties [1]. A rubber dam is an essential component of modern dentistry, though there were arguable questions on the endurance of the restoration favoured by the rubber dam placement [2]. A multitude of advantages was cited, including improved operator access and visibility, minimized aerosol formation, and patient safety [3,4]. It was further entrenched that rubber dam is imperative in providing isolation of the working area, standard of care, and avoiding possible risk to the patients due to fortuitous ingestion of dental instruments or restorative materials during their undergraduate years [5]. Earlier studies have shown that there are negative perceptions associated with its use among dental students [6,7]. According to a study by Mala et al., more than 50% of the interviewed dental students believed that they would be using rubber dam rarely when they start practicing independently [7]. This emphasizes the need of accentuating the use of rubber dams in clinical dentistry among future dental practitioners while they are at dental school [7].
It is important to identify various barriers behind the student’s adherence to rubber dam application and reform the guidelines to overcome those hindrances so that the students develop a positive attitude towards rubber dam isolation especially while restoring the teeth with adhesive materials. The behavioural sciences are useful in that they offer frameworks for comprehending the occurrence of behaviour, how it persists, and how to modify it [8]. The Behaviour Change Wheel served as the basis for the COM-B model, a crucial framework [9]. It is a visual depiction of a consensus study carried out by professionals in the implementation sciences and health psychology. The COM-B model describes how behaviours are caused, how interventions work, and which policy categories they fall under [10]. Thus, this model provides insight into behaviour (B) by highlighting three interconnected factors that may be changed to modify it: Capability (C), Opportunity (O), and Motivation (M) [8-10]. These three factors were considered as barriers if they promote the positive outcome behaviour and enablers if they discourage the outcome behaviour. Accordingly, Abreu-Placeres et al. [3] have introduced a validated questionnaire namely Rubber Dam Isolation Survey (E-RDIS) exclusively for adhesive restorations in operative dentistry.
Acceptable behaviour in dental students involves strict rubber dam implementation in all cases unless absolutely contraindicated. The COM-B model provides an empirically supported approach to pinpoint the elements that require modification in order to alter undesirable behaviours [3,8,9]. Identifying the barriers will help the stakeholders in modifying policies that will help students understand the importance of rubber dam usage and ultimately increase its usage in clinical dentistry. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the various barriers in practicing rubber dam isolation while performing dental procedures and provide necessary insight into it among clinical undergraduate dental students.
Materials and methods
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved (Ref. No.: CODJU 2103F) by the Institutional Review Board of Jazan University.
Sample size and participants
The sample size analysis was utilized using G*Power statistical program software (Version 3.1.9.3; Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany) with alpha value = 0.05, beta = 0.80, two-tailed, the effect size was medium (0.03), and the suggested sample size was 200 participants. Dental students of both genders in their third, final, fifth, sixth year and interns who attended operative dentistry classes were eligible for participating in this study. First and second year students who did not take any operative dentistry classes were excluded from the study. The rest of class year students and interns were included in the study.
Questionnaire
A pre-validated questionnaire [3] in English entitled Rubber Dam Isolation Survey (E-RDIS) with some additional questions on demographic data was distributed by a single investigator in January 2022 through an online platform to dental students and interns of the dental college at Jazan University. A Google form digital version of the questionnaire was used to survey the students through emails and social media platforms (WhatsApp, Meta Platforms) to 275 prospective participants in order to meet the required sample size. Every participant signed a consent form that was sent online along with the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 11 questions in total (Appendix A1); five questions were about the barriers in rubber dam application, two questions about the outcome behaviour, and four questions about the demographics. The questionnaire was based on the COM-B model of behavioural change wheel (Figure 1) [9].
Figure 1. Interaction between the components of the path COM-B model associated with the RDIS items.
The image has been recreated based on the idea from the article by Michie et al. [9]. The single-headed and double-headed arrows represent the potential influence between components in the system.
COM-B: Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour; RDIS: Rubber Dam Isolation Survey.
The questions need to be responded to on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 doesn’t fulfill the criteria, and 5 fulfills the criteria. The question about opportunity had a subdivision of two questions that assessed the importance of using rubber dam (relevance) and the availability of rubber dams in the school clinics (resources). A reminder message was sent a week later to ensure maximum response. A fixed time frame of 15 days was considered for receiving the response from the participants. The responses that were completely filled and received before the stipulated time were considered for analysis. The entire methodology has been explained in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Flow chart of the data collection process from the participant.
COM-B: Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour.
This image is created by the authors.
Results
Among the 275 students approached, 226 students from Jazan Dental College participated in the study resulting in an 82.2% response rate. The age range of many participants was between 21 and 30 years old (n=221) (Table 1).
Table 1. Demographic distribution of the participants (N = 245).
| Demographic Variables | N (%) | |
| Gender | Male | 140 (57.1) |
| Female | 105 (42.9) | |
| Class year | 3rd year | 96 (39.2) |
| 4th year | 34 (13.9) | |
| 5th year | 30 (12.2) | |
| 6th year | 44 (18.0) | |
| Intern | 41 (16.7) | |
| Saudi | 197 (79.1) | |
| Non-Saudi | 52 (20.9) | |
| Age | 21-30 years old | 237 (96.7) |
| 41- 60 years old | 1 (.4) | |
| Below 20 years | 7 (2.9) | |
| University | Jazan | 227 (92.7) |
| Other | 18 (6.3) | |
Table 2 explains the results of the participant’s responses analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The mean students’ satisfaction with training was higher among sixth year and interns than others (Mean=3.57 and 3.56 respectively, Median=2, IQR=-1, p<0.001). Regarding capability, fourth year dental students scored higher than other groups (Mean=3.18, Median=1, IQR=1, p<0.001). Similarly, more third year students considered the use of rubber dam as an opportunity-relevance (Mean=2.93, Median=1, IQR=1, p=0.014) and opportunity-resources (Mean=3.42, Median=1, IQR=1, p<0.003) than other groups. Regarding motivation, fourth year students were more motivated to use rubber dams (Mean=4.21, Median=2, IQR=5, p=0.004) and more likely to use rubber dams in posterior teeth than others (Mean=3.74, Median=2, IQR=1, p<0.001). Also, third year students were more likely to use rubber dams in anterior teeth than other groups (Mean=3.52, Median=2, IQR=1, p<0.001).
Table 2. Kruskal-Wallis test of students’ response means by class years .
E-RDIS: English version of Rubber Dam Isolation Survey.
| *E-RDIS items (N = 226) | 3rd year | 4th year | 5th year | 6th year | Dental intern | p-value |
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Satisfaction with training | 1.41 ± .494 | 1.35 ± .485 | 1.37 ± .490 | 1.61 ± .493 | 1.63 ± .488 | < .001> |
| Capability | 1.38 ± .487 | 1.38 ± .493 | 1.43 ± .504 | 1.48 ± .505 | 1.39 ± .494 | < .001> |
| Opportunity-relevance | 1.43 ± .497 | 1.44 ± .504 | 1.27 ± .450 | 1.43 ± .501 | 1.29 ± .461 | .005 |
| Opportunity-resources | 1.57 ± .497 | 1.27 ± .448 | 1.37 ± .490 | 1.43 ± .501 | 1.44 ± .502 | .004 |
| Motivation | 2.23 ± 1.57 | 2.27 ± 1.88 | 1.93 ± 1.98 | 1.60 ± 1.21 | 1.29 ± 1.45 | .003 |
| Behavior-anterior teeth | 1.58 ± .496 | 1.53 ± .507 | 1.17 ± .379 | 1.21 ± .408 | 1.46 ± .505 | < .001> |
| Behavior-posterior teeth | 1.52 ± .502 | 1.62 ± .493 | 1.63 ± .490 | 1.36 ± .487 | 1.54 ± .505 | < .001> |
Spearman rho correlation describes that the items of the questionnaire were significantly correlated internally ranging from strong (0.633) to weak (0.170) correlation. The internal consistency of the seven questionnaire items was very good using Cronbach’s alpha test (a=0.819) (Table 3).
Table 3. Spearman rho correlation between different domains of the questionnaire.
Spearman rho test is significant at * p < .05, ** p < .01
| RDIS items (N = 249) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 1. Satisfaction with Training | 1.00 | ||||||
| 2. Capability | .708** | 1.00 | |||||
| 3. Opportunity Relevance | .364** | .247** | 1.00 | ||||
| 4. Opportunity Resources | .216** | .216** | .252** | 1.00 | |||
| 5. Motivation | .281** | .241* | .310** | .169 | 1.00 | ||
| 6. Behavior (anterior teeth) | .192** | .263** | .299** | .211** | .585** | 1.00 | |
| 7. Behavior (posterior teeth) | .164* | .256** | .228** | .155** | .624** | .491** | 1.00 |
In Table 4, regarding the rubber dam usage for anterior teeth, the capability to perform the procedure was a significant predictor (OR = 6.68, CI 95% = 2.33, 19.18, p <0.05) as well as, motivation to use rubber dam (OR = 12.08, CI 95% = 2.61, 55.86, p <0.05). Regarding the odds for the use of rubber dam on posterior teeth, capability (OR = 4.28, CI 95% = 1.80, 10.19, p <0.05), opportunity relevance (OR = 2.34, CI 95% = 1.09, 5.03, p <0.05) and motivation (OR = 3.74, CI 95% = 1.45, 9.64, p <0.05) were the significant predictors. Satisfaction was a barrier towards the use of the rubber dam in posterior teeth (OR = 0.200, CI 95% = 0.063, 0.627, p <0.05).
Table 4. Logistic regression: the use of rubber dam according to position on the jaw.
OR: Odds ratio, Logistic regression is significant at p < 0.05*, (none and rare =0).
| Variable | Category | OR | CI 95% | |
| Use of rubber dam on Anterior teeth is the outcome variable | ||||
| Satisfaction | 0.923 | 0.512 | 1.66 | |
| Capability | 1.68 | 0.993 | 2.83 | |
| Opportunity relevance | 0.901 | 0.553 | 1.47 | |
| Opportunity resources | 0.759 | 0.455 | 1.27 | |
| Motivation | 2.64* | 1.71 | 4.07 | |
| Gender | Males | 0.727 | 0.266 | 1.99 |
| Females | Reference | |||
| Use of rubber dam on Posterior teeth is the outcome variable | ||||
| Satisfaction | 0.605 | 0.294 | 1.25 | |
| Capability | 1.49 | 0.776 | 2.84 | |
| Opportunity relevance | 1.22 | 0.701 | 2.11 | |
| Opportunity resources | 1.26 | 0.714 | 2.21 | |
| Motivation | 3.61* | 2.20 | 5.91 | |
| Gender | Males | 0.520 | 0.168 | 1.61 |
| Females | Reference | |||
Discussion
This study aimed to assess the barriers to the implementation of rubber dam isolation in restorative treatments among dental students using a validated E-RDIS questionnaire. The results of the survey helped in identifying the components, which require modification to change the student behaviour [11,12]. Previous studies posit that the barriers in using rubber dam isolation technique among dental professionals begins from their dental school during clinical practice [7,13]. Some of these barriers include patient discomfort, high cost of materials and equipment, and insufficient training and time [14,15]. Pradeep et al., 2022, reported that scarcity in appropriate clamps and denial by patients for rubber dam application are the barriers among undergraduate dental students [4]. Another study conducted among dental students by Abuzaneda BM 2021 reported that rubber dam application extends the treatment time but improves the durability of the dental fillings [16]. The most significant predictor found in this study was opportunity related to resources availability. In this questionnaire that was based on COM-B model, each component was assessed by a single item, excluding the behaviour of student. There were two separate questions for evaluating the behaviour on usage of rubber dam in anterior and posterior teeth. It also included an additional auxiliary question that focused on the satisfaction with training. It was found that the satisfaction with training differed among the students of different years. Similarly, the belief of resource availability for rubber dam usage, and the importance of rubber dam usage in affecting grades were other factors that varied among students of different class. There could be many factors that have caused the variation in predictors among the students of different years. One is self-efficacy theory, that explains that people perform task that they believe are capable to perform, whereas, they leave those in which they judge themselves to be incompetent [17]. Self-efficacy when reaches at a certain threshold does not inhibit behaviour, however, a greater frequency in behaviour is not achieved with additional gains in self-efficacy.
Studies have reported that undergraduate students receive adequate educational training on rubber dam placement and its advantages but lack hands-on training [18-20]. It has also been studied, that many variables influence undergraduate students in how they construe their careers, which includes the grades received and/or the knowledge attained [21]. Accordingly, students were more interested in achieving good grades or are more focused on learning the course material [21]. Therefore, the learning orientation among the students differs along with their plans to pursue post-graduation studies or specializations [22]. Based on the COM-B model, among the students, motivation for grades is a silent barrier for usage of rubber dam, while another important barrier as was found in this study could be opportunity-relevance.
Compared to the anterior teeth, posterior teeth were more commonly treated with rubber dams. Regarding the area of placement of rubber dam, the results reported that posterior teeth (Mean=3.74) were more frequently preferred than the anterior teeth (Mean=3.52). Similarly, previous studies found that the students were more inclined to the use of rubber dam for posterior composites and less on anterior restorations [12,13]. There were wealthy of literature outlining the reasons for not utilizing rubber dam including cost, time consuming, difficulty in placement, patient acceptance, visibility and so on [23,24]. However, usage of rubber dam placement in posterior teeth rather than anterior teeth depends on the choice of restorative material, tooth location and type of restorative procedure [7, 23]. To substantiate, Gilbert et al. 2010 has reported arguable number of studies stating that rubber dam usage was uncommon because of above mentioned factors, with few dentists prefer using rubber dam for class 2 amalgam restorations and composite restoration on posterior teeth [23]. The other possible reason could be the property of rubber dam itself, as it is efficient in decreasing salivary contamination and maintains a dry working field which is otherwise arduous in the posterior region when compared with the anterior teeth [25,26].
Limitations of the study
Firstly, only one item assessed each component of COM-B model; however, it made the survey completion easy. Secondly, there could be some recall bias, as the data collected were self-reported by the students. Thirdly, the responses of third year students who only have preclinical experience could not be used to extrapolate the behaviour of other students with clinical experience about the use of rubber dam.
Strengths of the study
However, the results of the study can be used by the stakeholders, in understanding what factors among students are causing barriers in implementation of rubber dam isolation for adhesive restorative treatment. This in turn can help them in implementing targeted strategies for removing these barriers, and enhancing positive behaviour towards its usage. One such approach could be to emphasize teaching rubber dam technique to students and encouraging their learning by making it a required subject for grades. This could increase the use of rubber dam among undergraduate students for all restorative procedures.
A systematic review from the Cochrane database reported that there is a need for high quality research and clinical evaluation to validate the influence of rubber dam isolation on the survival of restoration [25]. Further studies should focus on evaluating the quality and longevity of the restoration that is performed by undergraduate students with and without the application of rubber dam during adhesive restorative treatments. This could also improve the patient acceptance towards rubber dam application for better longevity of restorations.
Conclusions
The E-RDIS is a validated tool to understand the barriers in rubber dam isolation behavior for adhesive restorative treatments among dental students. The most significant barrier found was the motivation in the form of grades to encourage the use rubber dam. The satisfaction with training differed among the students of different years. Similarly, the confidence level of students and their belief of resource availability for rubber dam usage were other factors that varied among students of different years. Increased application of rubber dam technique could result from emphasizing its importance in grades and emphasizing students' ability to perform the technique.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the undergraduate students of Jazan University, Saudi Arabia for participating in this study.
Appendices
Table 5. Rubber Dam Isolation Survey (RDIS) for adhesive restorative treatments.
Adhesive Restorative Treatment refers to resins, glass ionomers, and sealants.
Instructions to the participants: Please answer all of the following questions by selecting from the multiple choices. Choose one answer only.
| S. No | Questions | Choices |
| 1 | How satisfied are you with the training (theoretical/practical) you have received whilst studying dentistry regarding the use of rubber dam isolation? | Not at all satisfied |
| Slightly satisfied | ||
| Moderately satisfied | ||
| Very satisfied | ||
| Completely satisfied | ||
| 2 | How important is rubber dam isolation in terms of effectiveness/quality of your adhesive restorative treatment? | Not at all important |
| Slightly important | ||
| Moderately important | ||
| Very important | ||
| Extremely important | ||
| 3 | Do you have all the resources you need (time, instruments, materials, etc.) in order to achieve rubber dam isolation? | Never |
| Rarely | ||
| Sometimes | ||
| Most of the time | ||
| Always | ||
| 4 | How does your use of rubber dam isolation for adhesive restorative treatments affect your grade? | Not at all |
| Slightly | ||
| Moderately | ||
| Very much | ||
| Completely | ||
| I don't know | ||
| 5 | How often do you use rubber dam isolation for adhesive restorative treatments of the anterior teeth? | Never |
| Rarely | ||
| Sometimes | ||
| Most of the time | ||
| Always | ||
| 6 | How often do you use rubber dam isolation for adhesive restorative treatments of the posterior teeth? | Never |
| Rarely | ||
| Sometimes | ||
| Most of the time | ||
| Always | ||
| 7 | How old are you today? | Below 20 years |
| 21 to 30 | ||
| Above 30 years | ||
| 8 | Gender | Male |
| Female | ||
| 9 | University | Jazan University |
| Others. Please: specify: _______________________ | ||
| 10 | Education | Dental intern |
| 3rd year | ||
| 4th year | ||
| 5th year | ||
| 6th year |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Author Contributions
Concept and design: Thilla Sekar Vinothkumar , Ahmed M. Bokhari, Nassreen Albar, Syed Nahid Basheer , Gnanasekaran Felsypremila, Waad F. Khayat, Bassam Zidane, Renugalakshmi Apathsakayan
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Thilla Sekar Vinothkumar , Ahmed M. Bokhari, Nassreen Albar, Syed Nahid Basheer , Waad F. Khayat, Bassam Zidane
Drafting of the manuscript: Thilla Sekar Vinothkumar , Ahmed M. Bokhari, Nassreen Albar, Syed Nahid Basheer , Gnanasekaran Felsypremila
Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Thilla Sekar Vinothkumar , Ahmed M. Bokhari, Nassreen Albar, Syed Nahid Basheer , Gnanasekaran Felsypremila, Waad F. Khayat, Bassam Zidane, Renugalakshmi Apathsakayan
Supervision: Thilla Sekar Vinothkumar , Ahmed M. Bokhari
Human Ethics
Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institutional Review Board, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia issued approval CODJU 2103F. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Jazan University
Animal Ethics
Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.
References
- 1.Recent advances in direct adhesive restoration resin-based dental materials with remineralizing agents. Mai S, Zhang Q, Liao M, Ma X, Zhong Y. Front Dent Med. 2022;3 [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Wang Y, Li C, Yuan H, Wong MC, Zou J, Shi Z, Zhou X. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9:0. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rubber Dam Isolation Survey (RDIS) for adhesive restorative treatments. Abreu-Placeres N, Yunes Fragoso P, Cruz Aponte P, Garrido LE. Eur J Dent Educ. 2020;24:724–733. doi: 10.1111/eje.12562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Knowledge and attitude about rubber dam usage in undergraduate students: An original research. Pradeep O, Patil RS, Sojin SS, Reddy P, Adarsh S, Pandey PR. https://www.pnrjournal.com/index.php/home/article/view/9752/13588 J Pharm Negat Results. 2022;13:4501–4507. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Do dental educators need to improve their approach to teaching rubber dam use? Hill EE, Rubel BS. J Dent Educ. 2008;72:1177–1181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Attitudes of some European dental undergraduate students to the placement of direct restorative materials in posterior teeth. Lynch CD, Guillem SE, Nagrani B, Gilmour AS, Ericson D. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37:916–926. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02119.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Attitudes of final year dental students to the use of rubber dam. Mala S, Lynch CD, Burke FM, Dummer PM. Int Endod J. 2009;42:632–638. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01569.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Designing behaviour change: a behavioural problem/solution (BPS) matrix. Cash P, Khadilkar P, Jensen J, Dusterdich C, Mugge R. https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/3952/907 Int J Des. 2020;14:65–83. [Google Scholar]
- 9.The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Barriers and enablers for artificial intelligence in dental diagnostics: a qualitative study. Müller A, Mertens SM, Göstemeyer G, Krois J, Schwendicke F. J Clin Med. 2021;10 doi: 10.3390/jcm10081612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Michie S, Atkins L, West R. Great Britain: Silverback Publishing; 2014. The behaviour change wheel: a guide to designing interventions; p. 325. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Understanding dentists' caries management: The COM-B ICCMS™ questionnaire. Abreu-Placeres N, Newton JT, Pitts N, Garrido LE, Ekstrand KR, Avila V, Martignon S. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018;46:545–554. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.The attitudes of undergraduate dental students to the use of the rubber dam. Ryan W, O'Connel A. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17685058/ J Ir Dent Assoc. 2007;53:87–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: a review. Ahmad IA. Int Endod J. 2009;42:963–972. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01623.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rubber dam use among a subpopulation of Nigerian dentists. Udoye CI, Jafarzadeh H. J Oral Sci. 2010;52:245–249. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.52.245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Attitude of dental students towards the rubber dam use in operative dentistry. Abuzenada BM. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021;13:0–41. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_764_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Grinberg AM, Ung S, Roman B. Enhancing Patient Engagement in Pulmonary Healthcare. Vol. 55. Springer, Cham; 2020. The impact of self-efficacy on behavior change: the roles of socio-cultural and mental health factors; p. 77. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Knowledge and motivation of Nigerian dental students towards the use of rubber dam. Umanah AU, Akadri OA. Niger Dent J. 2014;22:72–76. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Undergraduate dental students' perception, educational satisfaction, and attitude regarding the use of rubber dam. Olatosi OO, Nzomiwu CL, Erinoso OA, Oladunjoye AA. https://journals.lww.com/jocs/fulltext/2018/15010/undergraduate_dental_students__perception,.3.aspx J Clin Sci. 2018;15:13–17. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Assessment of awareness and use of rubber dam among dental practitioners in Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Dhamne S, Ram SM, Dharadhar SS, Upadhyay RG, Patel TA. J Contemp Dent. 2020;10:1–5. [Google Scholar]
- 21.When the tail wags the dog: perceptions of learning and grade orientation in, and by, contemporary college students and faculty. Pollio HR, Beck HP. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2649283 J Higher Educ. 2000;7:84–102. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Educational orientation, neo PI-R personality traits, and plans for graduate school. Scepansky JA, Bjornsen CA. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284712469_Educational_orientation_Neo_PI-R_personality_traits_and_plans_for_graduate_school Coll Stud J. 2003;37:574–581. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the Dental PBRN. Gilbert GH, Litaker MS, Pihlstrom DJ, Amundson CW, Gordan VV. Oper Dent. 2010;35:491–499. doi: 10.2341/09-287C. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Patients' attitudes to rubber dam. Stewardson DA, McHugh ES. Int Endod J. 2002;35:812–819. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00571.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Miao C, Yang X, Wong MC, Zou J, Zhou X, Li C, Wang Y. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;5:0. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.The teaching of posterior composites: a survey of dental schools in Oceania. Loch C, Liaw Y, Metussin AP, Lynch CD, Wilson N, Blum IR, Brunton PA. J Dent. 2019;84:36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]