• Users Online: 263
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 80-84

Dimensional comparison of rubber dam clamp prongs with cervical mesiodistal dimension of primary second molar

Department Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, K M Shah Dental College and Hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Seema Bargale
Department of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, K M Shah Dental College and Hospital, Piparia, Gujarat
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/AIHB.AIHB_11_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: The stability of the rubber dam (RD) basically depends on the selection of a properly fitting clamp corresponding to the tooth. There are significant differences in tooth size between various races. This implies that the commercially available RD clamps may fit well to teeth of one population but not to another. Aim: The aim of this study was to obtain standard measure of mesiodistal widths at the cervical level of primary second molars in Gujarat children and to compare them with commercial RD clamps commonly used in paediatric dentistry. Materials and Methods: A total of sixty children were selected on the basis of selection criteria. The mesiodistal widths of primary second molars were measured at the clinical cervical level for buccal and lingual sides, respectively, by a digital Vernier caliper. It was compared with mesiodistal with of RD clamps no. #14A, #7 and #13A/12A. Statistical tests independent sample t-test and single sample t-test were applied. Results: All clamps width show significant difference either buccal or lingual side with their respected teeth (P < 0.05). #14A and #7 clamp show <1 mm discrepancy for mandibular second molar while for maxillary second molar discrepancy were more than 1 mm. #13A/#12A show large discrepancy for mandibular second molar. Conclusion: Cervical mesiodistal dimensions of primary mandibular molars were generally larger than those of primary maxillary molars. #14A and #7 can relatively fit to primary mandibular second molar and #13A/#12A for primary maxillary second molar.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded336    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal