Sound levels in conservative dentistry and endodontics clinic

Evaluation of Noise Levels in a University Dental Clinic

“…The settings had varied characteristics, as some had renovated dental equipment and others had units more than 15-30 years old, either in a clinical or laboratory environment. Overall, noise measurement findings were within the recommended limit values for dental equipment (47.5 to 80.8 dB(A) and corresponded to previous reports for noise estimation in university dental clinics and laboratories [39][40][41][42]57,58]. To mention accordingly, in India for example, it was concluded that the mean noise levels in the working clinics ranged from 63.0 dB(A) to 81.5 dB(A) [39] and 54 dB(A) to 83.3 dB(A) [58].…”

“…Overall, noise measurement findings were within the recommended limit values for dental equipment (47.5 to 80.8 dB(A) and corresponded to previous reports for noise estimation in university dental clinics and laboratories [39][40][41][42]57,58]. To mention accordingly, in India for example, it was concluded that the mean noise levels in the working clinics ranged from 63.0 dB(A) to 81.5 dB(A) [39] and 54 dB(A) to 83.3 dB(A) [58]. In Saudi Arabia, an overall noise level of 73.83 ± 4.39 dB within the dental clinical setting was calculated [57]; in Casablanca, noise levels were between 69.35 dB(A) and 72.07 dB(A) [42]; in Hong Kong, it was between 62.6 dB(A) and 67.7 dB(A) [41].…”

“…Suction alone was equally noisy compared to suction using airotor/micromotor, whereas suction using an ultrasonic handpiece was noisier, as mentioned elsewhere [27]. Additionally, it is important to mention that in the PG settings, there were statistically important differences in the noise levels produced from different specialty treatments, with the therapeutic department being noisier than the prosthetics department, as also reported in a study by Baseer et al [58].…”

“…As the spectrum analysis shows in this study, there are sudden bursts of noise when ultrasonic/airotor handpieces are used. It is advised then that students and personnel consider the following, suggested also elsewhere [36][37][38][39][57][58][59][60]: (a) other working methods, where possible, that involve less exposure to noise; (b) the choice of suitable work equipment, which, with regard to the work to be carried out, emits the least possible noise; (c) the possibility of providing dental students and personnel with dental equipment that complies with noise exposure limits; (d) the design and layout of dental clinics with larger distances between units than the ones mentioned here; (e) students and personnel should be adequately informed and trained to use work equipment correctly in order to minimize their exposure to noise. Furthermore, noise reduction by technical means, which could be applied more in this case for further noise protection and suggested also by others, are as follows [45,[55][56][57]60]: (i) to reduce airborne noise, e.g., shielding, encapsulation of the noise source (in enclosures), sound-absorbing covers; (ii) to reduce solid-borne noise, e.g., damping or insulation; (f) appropriate maintenance programs for dental units, compressors, pumping systems, and handpieces.…”