Gene W. Hirschfeld School of Dental Hygiene, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Gene W. Hirschfeld School of Dental Hygiene, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.
J Dent Hyg. 2024 Oct;98(5):7-15.
Dental professionals are exposed to hazardous noise levels on a daily basis in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to compare the hearing status of dental hygienists who utilize ultrasonic scalers in the workplace compared to age-matched control participants (non-dental hygienists) who were not exposed to ultrasonic noise. A convenience sample of nineteen dental hygienists (experimental) and nineteen non-dental hygienists (control) was recruited for this study. A matched pairs design was utilized; participants in each group were matched based on age and gender to eliminate confounding variables. The testing procedure consisted of an audiologist performing a series of auditory tests including otoacoustic emissions test, pure-tone audiometry, and tympanometry on the experimental and control groups. In the right ear, there were notable differences from 1000 Hz - 10,000 Hz and in the left ear from 6000 Hz - 10,000 Hz, with higher hearing thresholds in the experimental group of dental hygienists. While 56% of the univariate tests conducted on how many days were worked per week showed statistical significance, the regression line slope indicated those that worked more days had better hearing statuses. The variables for years in practice for dental hygienists, how many of those years were full-time employment, and how many years the dental hygienist had used an ultrasonic scaling device, also had many significant univariate tests for the experimental group only. These variables were more likely to serve as proxies representing true noise exposure. The paired t-test between the groups demonstrated statistically significant differences between the experimental and control group at 9000 Hz in both ears. While results from this study demonstrated various qualitative differences in hearing status of the control group (non-dental hygienists) and experimental group (dental hygienists), age was found to be the most critical variable. Furthermore, this data demonstrated differences in hearing status based on various frequencies between dental hygienists and age-matched controls that should be further explored with a larger population.
牙科专业人员在日常临床实践中会接触到危险的噪声水平。本研究的目的是比较在工作中使用超声洁牙器的牙科保健员与未接触超声噪声的年龄匹配对照组(非牙科保健员)的听力状况。本研究招募了 19 名牙科保健员(实验组)和 19 名非牙科保健员(对照组)作为方便样本。采用配对设计;每组中的参与者根据年龄和性别进行匹配,以消除混杂变量。测试程序包括听力学家对实验组和对照组进行一系列听觉测试,包括耳声发射测试、纯音听力测试和鼓室图测试。在右耳,从 1000Hz 到 10000Hz 以及左耳从 6000Hz 到 10000Hz 有明显差异,实验组的牙科保健员听力阈值较高。虽然每周工作天数的多项单变量检验中有 56%具有统计学意义,但回归线斜率表明工作天数较多的人听力状况较好。对于牙科保健员的从业年限、全职工作年限以及使用超声洁牙器的年限等变量,实验组也有许多单变量检验具有统计学意义。这些变量更有可能作为代表真实噪声暴露的替代指标。两组之间的配对 t 检验表明,实验组和对照组在双耳 9000Hz 处存在统计学差异。虽然本研究结果表明对照组(非牙科保健员)和实验组(牙科保健员)的听力状况存在各种定性差异,但年龄被发现是最关键的变量。此外,该数据还表明,牙科保健员和年龄匹配对照组之间基于不同频率的听力状况存在差异,这需要进一步用更大的人群进行研究。