Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34660436›Full record

ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2021

Noise levels encountered in university dental clinics during different specialty treatments.

Mohammad Abdul Baseer, Abdulrahman Al Saffan, Shahad Mousa AlMasoud, Wed Talal Dahy, Hadeel Waleed Aldali, Alaa M Walid Bachat, Rama M Walid Bachat, Osamah Mohammed AlMugeiren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluation of noise exposure and acoustic discomfort in a university dental hygiene clinic.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohammad Abdul BaseerDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulrahman Al SaffanDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Shahad Mousa AlMasoudDental Intern, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Wed Talal DahyDental Intern, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hadeel Waleed AldaliDental Intern, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Alaa M Walid BachatDental Intern, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rama M Walid BachatDental Intern, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Osamah Mohammed AlMugeirenDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh Elm University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNoise levels encountered during the dental treatments in different departments have deleterious effects on the ears of dental healthcare providers and there is scarcity of data in the literature in Saudi Arabia. Hence, the aim of the study was to determine the noise levels resulting from the usage of different specialty instruments and equipment. MATERIAL AND

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted to measure the level of noise produced by different specialty instruments and equipment within the dental clinics of the College of Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University (REU), Riyadh. The noise produced during the restorative treatments, endodontics and prosthodontics was recorded objectively using a decibel (dB) meter placed at a distance of 30 cm from the operator's ear. Mean noise levels were calculated and compared among the various specialty treatments using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Furthermore, Tukey's test was applied to perform a pairwise comparison between the groups.

resultsAn overall noise of 73.83 ± 4.39 dB was found to be generated within the dental clinical setting. A highest sound level of 79.44 ± 2.10 dB was observed during restorative treatment followed by 74.14 ± 3.08, 73.22 ± 1.93, 71.39 ± 3.37 and 70.97 ± 4.70 dB for endodontic, periodontal, and prosthodontic treatments, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed in the noise levels produced from the different specialty treatments (

conclusionThe greatest noise level was recorded with the use of the amalgamator in restorative dental treatment. It was inferred that the noise emanating from all the specialty dental treatments was below the hazardous levels. Long-term exposure may, however, have adverse effects on auditory as well as general health.

Indexed as

Auditory effect decibel (dB)dental clinicsnoisespecialty treatmentUniversity

Identifiers

PMID34660436
PMCPMC8483108
OpenAlexW3197498312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.