ArticleBDJ open2017
Assessment of noise intensity in a dental teaching clinic.
Article in BDJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Basic characteristics of tongue pressure and electromyography generated by articulation of a syllable using the posterior part of the tongue.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Noise Disturbance and Potential Hearing Loss Due to Exposure of Dental Equipment in Flemish Dentists.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Effect of Titrated Exposure to Non-Traumatic Noise on Unvoiced Speech Recognition in Human Listeners with Normal Audiological Profiles.Trends in hearingArticle
- Should Dentists Mandatorily Wear Ear Protection Device to Prevent Occupational Noise-induced Hearing Loss? A Randomized Case-Control Study.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
- [Noise levels of dental equipment used in a dental schoolNíveis de ruído gerados por procedimentos realizados em uma escola de odontologia].Revista CuidarteArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/
aimsThe aim of this study is to evaluate if the duration of the consultation has influence on the intensity of noise in the dental clinic environment. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe measurement was performed using the decibelmetre IDETEC 300. It was turned on among 10 dental equipment at basal time (BT) and in the first, second and third hours of activity by 10 times with 1-week interval.
resultsThe average noise was 67.39±1.11 dB for BT and 82.38±3.85, 80.99±4.78, and 70.06±6.95 dB for hours 1 to 3, respectively, representing a significant difference (ANOVA, F(3.36)=29.28,
conclusionIn the first and second hours of clinical care there was more noise intensity in the work environment compared to BT and to the third time. Furthermore, the noise peaks became closer to the limit of 85 dB, which can threaten hearing loss with repeated exposure throughout a dentist's career. DISCUSSION: The findings presented here show how much the dental surgeon is exposed to the level of noise since his time of study.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.