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。
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.