Ultrasonic dental scaler: associated hazards

Trenter, Suzanne; Walmsley, A. D.

doi:10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.00276.x

Cited by 101 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During medical transplant or other surgeries, health professionals might face the risk of inhaling airborne biological agents aerosolized from the patient's blood. Trenter and Walmsley (2003) have indicated that use of ultrasonic dental scaler during the dental operation could release aerosols that may contain dangerous bacteria. A recent study indicated that there was about 23% possibility of influenza virus infections in people wearing surgical and N95 respiratory masks (Loeb et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of carbon nanotube filter in removing bioaerosols

Guan

Yao

2010

Journal of Aerosol Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of carbon nanotube filter in removing bioaerosols

Guan

Yao

2010

Journal of Aerosol Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The topic continues to produce anecdotal stories from patients and operators [120,121]. The review by Trenter & Walmsley [122] is recommended.…”

Section: Exposuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?

Leighton¹

2016

Proc. R. Soc. A.

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New measurements indicate that the public are being exposed, without their knowledge, to airborne ultrasound. Existing guidelines are insufficient for such exposures; the vast majority refers to occupational exposure only (where workers are aware of the exposure, can be monitored and can wear protection). Existing guidelines are based on an insufficient evidence base, most of which was collected over 40 years ago by researchers who themselves considered it insufficient to finalize guidelines, but which produced preliminary guidelines. This warning of inadequacy was lost as nations and organizations issued ‘new’ guidelines based on these early guidelines, and through such repetition generated a false impression of consensus. The evidence base is so slim that few reports have progressed far along the sequence from anecdote to case study, to formal scientific controlled trials and epidemiological studies. Early studies reported hearing threshold shifts, nausea, headache, fatigue, migraine and tinnitus, but there is insufficient research on human subjects, and insufficient measurement of fields, to assess what health risk current occupational and public exposures might produce. Furthermore, the assumptions underpinning audiology and physical measurements at high frequencies must be questioned: simple extrapolation of approaches used at lower frequencies does not address current unknowns. Recommendations are provided.

show abstract

“…[9][10][11][12][13][14] As a result, statements cautioning dentists to avoid the use of ultrasonic scalers and other electrical dental devices with patients who have CIEDs have appeared in the literature. 6,[15][16][17] However, clinical data are limited. Published studies to date have included a low number of patients and case reports that have provided conflicting results.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%