Summary of findings 3. Comparison 6. Rubber dam compared to no rubber dam for reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols.
| Rubber dam compared to no rubber dam for reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols | ||||||
| Population: people undergoing aerosol generating procedures Setting: closed dental operatory Intervention: rubber dam Comparison: no rubber dam | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with no rubber dam | Risk with rubber dam | |||||
| Rate of infection of dental staff or patients | Not reported | |||||
| Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment | Not reported | |||||
|
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at 1 meter from mouth |
The mean CFU level was 25.10 | MD 16.20 CFU lower (19.36 lower to 13.04 lower) | ‐ | 10 (1 RCT)a | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 | |
|
Reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at 2 meters from mouth |
The mean CFU level was 20.40 | MD 11.70 CFU lower (15.82 lower to 7.58 lower) | ‐ | 10 (1 RCT)a | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 | |
|
Reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at forehead |
The mean CFU level was 1.72 | MD 0.98 CFU higher (0.73 lower to 2.70 higher) | ‐ | 47 (1 RCT)b | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 2 | |
|
Reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at occiput |
The mean CFU level was 1.44 | MD 0.77 CFU higher (0.46 lower to 2.00 higher) | ‐ | 47 (1 RCT)b | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 2 | |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CFU: colony forming units; CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomized controlled trial | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1. Downgraded 1 level for unclear risk of selection, detection and reporting bias and 2 levels for imprecision due to small sample size reported in a single study
2. Downgraded 2 levels for high risk of selection and attrition bias and 2 levels for imprecision due to small sample size reported in a single study