Evaluation of Senior Dental Students’ General Attitude towards the Use of Rubber Dam: A Survey among Two Dental Schools

Table 4

Agreement or disagreement of students regarding various aspects of rubber dam.

	School A		School B		Significance
Rubber dam eases the restoration stage
I agree	57	57.00%	27	57.40%	𝜒^2: 0
I disagree	43	43.00%	20	42.60%	𝑃=0.959
Treatments performed using the rubber dam are more successful than those performed without using it
I agree	71	71.00%	34	72.30%	𝜒^2: 0.03
I disagree	29	29.00%	13	27.70%	𝑃=0.867
An adequate isolation cannot be achieved in case rubber dam is not used
I agree	73	73.00%	24	51.10%	𝜒^2: 6.86
I disagree	27	27.00%	23	48.90%	𝑃=0.009
Rubber dam eases access to root canals
I agree	41	41.00%	17	36.20%	𝜒^2: 0.31
I disagree	59	59.00%	30	63.80%	𝑃=0.576
Rubber dam makes radiograph taking procedure difficult
I agree	87	87.00%	43	91.50%	𝜒^2: 0.63
I disagree	13	13.00%	4	8.50%	𝑃=0.427
Rubber dam is difficult to apply
I agree	81	81.00%	36	76.60%	𝜒^2: 0.38
I disagree	19	19.00%	11	23.40%	𝑃=0.537
Rubber dam consists of too many components
I agree	86	86.00%	27	57.40%	𝜒^2: 14.66
I disagree	14	14.00%	20	42.60%	𝑃=0.0001
Rubber dam shortens/extends treatment period
Extends	92	92.00%	37	78.70%	𝜒^2: 5.25
Shortens	8	8.00%	10	21.30%	𝑃=0.022
Rubber dam is more necessary while working in the
Mandible	90	90.00%	46	97.90%	𝜒^2: 2.86
Maxilla	10	10.00%	1	2.10%	𝑃=0.091
Assistance is necessary during rubber dam application
I agree	33	33.00%	20	42.60%	𝜒^2: 1.27
I disagree	67	67.00%	27	57.40%	𝑃=0.261
Patients do not like the rubber dam
I agree	87	87.00%	42	89.40%	𝜒^2: 0.17
I disagree	13	13.00%	5	10.60%	𝑃=0.684