比较儿童牙科器械技术产生的噪声。

IF 1.7 Pediatric dentistry Pub Date : 2024-11-15
Elizabeth Mechas, Timothy Hsu, Christopher Discolo, Kamolphob Phasuk, Angela Yepes, George Eckert, Allison C Scully
{"title":"比较儿童牙科器械技术产生的噪声。","authors":"Elizabeth Mechas, Timothy Hsu, Christopher Discolo, Kamolphob Phasuk, Angela Yepes, George Eckert, Allison C Scully","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To compare the noise generated by different types of handpieces and isolation systems. <b>Methods:</b> Data were collected using a sound level meter (SLM) and noise dosimeter while preparing human teeth for stainless steel crowns using a high-speed handpiece and isolation/ evacuation for five minutes. The effects of the type of handpiece (air, electric) and isolation (rubber dam with high-speed evacuation, Dryshield) on noise were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance. <b>Results:</b> The sound level meter data showed that the air-driven handpiece with Dry-shield was statistically the loudest (equivalent continuous sound pressure level [LAeq] equals 80.7±0.7 dBA (P<0.001). The dosimeter data showed that both the air-driven handpiece with Dryshield and the electric handpiece with Dryshield were statistically the loudest (LAeq equals 84.9±1.1 dBA and 86±0.6 dBA, respectively; P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). There were no differences in peak sound levels between any of the groups (P>0.05). <b>Conclusions:</b> None of the pediatric dental instrument combinations studied reached the LAeq equals 90 dBA limitation for eight hours set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Although the noise levels were not above regulatory safety limitations, practitioners should consider hearing protection based on individual exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":101357,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric dentistry","volume":"46 6","pages":"413-418"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Noise Production of Pediatric Dental Instrumentation Techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Mechas, Timothy Hsu, Christopher Discolo, Kamolphob Phasuk, Angela Yepes, George Eckert, Allison C Scully\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To compare the noise generated by different types of handpieces and isolation systems. <b>Methods:</b> Data were collected using a sound level meter (SLM) and noise dosimeter while preparing human teeth for stainless steel crowns using a high-speed handpiece and isolation/ evacuation for five minutes. The effects of the type of handpiece (air, electric) and isolation (rubber dam with high-speed evacuation, Dryshield) on noise were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance. <b>Results:</b> The sound level meter data showed that the air-driven handpiece with Dry-shield was statistically the loudest (equivalent continuous sound pressure level [LAeq] equals 80.7±0.7 dBA (P<0.001). The dosimeter data showed that both the air-driven handpiece with Dryshield and the electric handpiece with Dryshield were statistically the loudest (LAeq equals 84.9±1.1 dBA and 86±0.6 dBA, respectively; P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). There were no differences in peak sound levels between any of the groups (P>0.05). <b>Conclusions:</b> None of the pediatric dental instrument combinations studied reached the LAeq equals 90 dBA limitation for eight hours set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Although the noise levels were not above regulatory safety limitations, practitioners should consider hearing protection based on individual exposure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric dentistry\",\"volume\":\"46 6\",\"pages\":\"413-418\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较不同类型的手机和隔离系统产生的噪音。方法:使用声级计(SLM)和噪声剂量计收集数据,同时使用高速手机准备不锈钢冠人牙并隔离/撤离5分钟。采用双向方差分析方法,分析了机头类型(空气、电动)和隔离方式(高速疏散橡胶坝、干盾)对噪声的影响。结果:声级计数据显示,带干屏蔽的气动机芯的声级最大(等效连续声压级[LAeq] = 80.7±0.7 dBA,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:所研究的儿童牙科器械组合均未达到职业安全与健康管理局(Occupational Safety and Health Administration)标准规定的8小时90 dBA的LAeq限值。虽然噪音水平并未超过规管的安全限制,但从业员应根据个人接触情况考虑保护听力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing Noise Production of Pediatric Dental Instrumentation Techniques.

Purpose: To compare the noise generated by different types of handpieces and isolation systems. Methods: Data were collected using a sound level meter (SLM) and noise dosimeter while preparing human teeth for stainless steel crowns using a high-speed handpiece and isolation/ evacuation for five minutes. The effects of the type of handpiece (air, electric) and isolation (rubber dam with high-speed evacuation, Dryshield) on noise were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance. Results: The sound level meter data showed that the air-driven handpiece with Dry-shield was statistically the loudest (equivalent continuous sound pressure level [LAeq] equals 80.7±0.7 dBA (P<0.001). The dosimeter data showed that both the air-driven handpiece with Dryshield and the electric handpiece with Dryshield were statistically the loudest (LAeq equals 84.9±1.1 dBA and 86±0.6 dBA, respectively; P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). There were no differences in peak sound levels between any of the groups (P>0.05). Conclusions: None of the pediatric dental instrument combinations studied reached the LAeq equals 90 dBA limitation for eight hours set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Although the noise levels were not above regulatory safety limitations, practitioners should consider hearing protection based on individual exposure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Parental and Child Mental Health Impairment and Child Dental Care Utilization Ages 5 to 17 Years in the United States. Evaluation of Breastfeeding and Formula Feeding on Childhood Caries Experience: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2018. Protecting Advocacy's Clout. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength, Microhardness, and Wear Resistance in Preformed Resin Polymer, Stainless Steel, and Zirconia Crowns. Evaluating AI Chatbots in Enhancing Care for Pediatric Dental Trauma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1