ArticleNoise & health
Evaluation of Noise in Paediatric Dentistry and Change in Perception of Operators with Use of Ear Protection Devices.
Article in Noise & health. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoise sources in paediatric dental offices include machinery and children's cries and screams. Although the presence of occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL) among dental operators is established, preventive measures such as ear protection devices (EPDs) are not frequently employed as prophylactic intervention. The primary aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the noise levels in paediatric dental clinics and to qualitatively evaluate the operators' perception of noise with and without the use of EPDs.
methodsA crossover study was conducted with 93 operators; half of whom first worked without EPD, and the other half worked with EPD. Sound produced near each operator was recorded in decibels (dBs) for five working days, and the maximum sound in decibel for each day was noted and averaged. The results were then compared with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) exposure limits. A questionnaire was handed out before the commencement of the study, and another at the end of the study.
resultsThe average noise level was 86.68 dB without EPD and 86.83 dB with EPD. About 65.59% dentists considered the level of noise at their workplace to be medium level, and 98.92% did not wear EPD. Most common findings, such as irritability at the end of the day (77.42%), were relieved after use of EPD in 92.47% dentists.
conclusionThe noise in the paediatric department is above the NOISH-recommended exposure limit, which is harmful to the auditory system. In general, dentists are knowledgeable about the noise in the operatory, although their knowledge about EPDs is not high.
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.