ArticleAnesthesia progress2024
Dental Suction Interference and Acoustic Respiratory Monitoring.
Article in Anesthesia progress, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Previous studies have reported that the noise generated by dental equipment can interfere with the auscultation of respiratory sounds during sedation. Therefore, this study aimed to identify whether positing the acoustic sensor on the chest or cervical position would be least susceptible to interference from dental suction device noise, a prominent noise noted during respiratory sound monitoring during dental sedation. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted with 30 students. Sound intensity (dB) and frequency (kHz) levels from the dental suction were recorded from the cervical and chest regions under both oral and nasal breathing conditions and analyzed. Results: The mean intensity of dental suction sounds was significantly lower in the chest region compared with the cervical region, regardless of the breathing condition (P < .001). Furthermore, in the chest region, the mean sound frequency during oral breathing was significantly lower than that during nasal breathing (P < .01). Conclusions: Our study suggests that monitoring respiratory sounds in the chest region can significantly reduce interference from noise generated by dental suction devices compared with monitoring at the cervical region.
Indexed as
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.