Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36532321›Full record

ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry

Should Dentists Mandatorily Wear Ear Protection Device to Prevent Occupational Noise-induced Hearing Loss? A Randomized Case-Control Study.

Kishan M Mohan, Aditi Chopra, Vasudeva Guddattu, Shruti Singh, Kumari Upasana

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review of hearing loss in dental professionals.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kishan M MohanDepartment of Speech and Hearing, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Aditi ChopraDepartment of Periodontology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Vasudeva GuddattuDepartment of Data Science, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Shruti SinghDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Kumari UpasanaShri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India.
Manipal Academy of Higher Education · INShree Krishna Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Dentists are constantly exposed to high-frequency noise at their workplace that increases the risk of occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL). Even though dentists acknowledge about the noisy dental workplace, hearing protection devices or ear protection devices (EPD) are not commonly used by dentists. No study has yet provided any evidence on how effective EPDs can be in reducing the temporary threshold shift and damage to the outer, middle and inner ears. The aim of this article is to evaluate and compare the changes in the hearing acuity and temporary threshold shift (TTS) in dentists who wear EPDs when compared with those who do not use EPDs. Materials and Methods: Sixty-four dental clinicians were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1 (performed ultrasonic scaling without EPDs) and Group 2 (performed ultrasonic scaling with EPDs). Their hearing threshold was checked by using pure tone audiometry, stapedial acoustic reflexes, and otoacoustic emission (OAE) before and after 45 mins of ultrasonic scaling. The intergroup and intragroup comparison was done. All the outcome measures from pre- and post-scaling across the ears, groups, and frequencies among groups were done using mixed-effects analysis of variance. A Results: EPDs were effective in reducing the immediate TTSs. Immediately upon exposure to high-frequency noise, the alterations in the hearing threshold and stapedial reflex OAE were less in the group that used EPDs. Conclusion: EPDs should be mandatorily worn by dentists to prevent accumulation of temporary shifts in the hearing acuity, which in long-term can lead to permanent hearing loss.

Indexed as

Dentistsear plugsear protection devicenoiseoccupational hazardoccupational noise induced hearing lossscalingultrasonic scalers

Identifiers

PMID36532321
PMCPMC9753927
OpenAlexW4312066203

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.