Assessment of hearing performance of dental technicians due to the professional noise exposure

Abstract Background Some of the noise-intensive processes in dental laboratories include the finishing of crowns, bridges, and removable partial dentures; blowing out workpieces with steam and compressed air; and deflating casting rings. High sound pressure levels are also present in dental vibrators, polishing equipment, and sandblasters. The aim of this study was to Evaluation of the effect of noise production in dental technology laboratory on dental technician hearing capacity. Methods For this cross-sectional study, a total of 120 dental technicians were chosen. Otoscopic evaluation and the Weber test were used to establish if they had sensorineural or transmission hearing loss at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 4000 Hz, respectively. Then an OAER (objective auditory evoked response) and PTA (clinical aurimeter) test were administered (Neurosoft, Russia). The whole procedure was carried out by an audiologist and an ENT specialist. Results The PTA results showed that the patient had mild hearing impairment overall, with the loss being more severe in the left ear than in the right. The OAE test results revealed that in-ear of the left side, 84.5% of subjects passed and 15.5% of subjects struggled and were referred to an ear specialist, whereas in the right ear, 82.7% of subjects passed and 17.3% struggled and were referred to an ear specialist. According to this study, in a right-handed study participant, the ear on the left side is more vulnerable than the right side. Differences in the mean hearing threshold at 4000 and 6000 Hz in the left ear were statistically significant in the groups of workers with eleven to fifteen years of practical experience and twenty-one to twenty-five years of practical experience, respectively (Minervini, et al. J Clin Med 12:2652, 2023). Conclusions A statistically meaningful threshold shift from 4000 to 6000 Hz is observed as the working experience grows, and this is suggestive of sensorineural hearing impairment brought on by the noisy dental environment

Dental caries prevalence among Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) 6- to 12-year-old children in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia compared to non-diabetic children

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of dental caries among groups of 6–12-year-old children with and without Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, taking into account oral health behaviour, diet, and salivary parameters. Methods: The study was designed as a comparable study of dental caries experience between T1DM and non-diabetic groups of children. The total sample size of 209 participants consisted of 69 diabetic and 140 non-diabetic children. Oral hygiene, diet and socio-economic status were collected using a pre-tested questionnaire. Caries was recorded in terms of decayed and filled permanent and primary teeth (DFT/dft). Salivary microbial counts and pH levels were recorded using Caries Risk Test (CRT) kit. Student's t-test, the chi-squared test, linear regression and one-way analysis of variance were performed P-value of 0.05 considered significant. Results: The mean dft scores for the diabetic and non-diabetic groups were 3.32 ± 0.78 and 3.28 ± 0.71 (mean ± SD), respectively (p = 0.458). The mean DFT scores for the diabetic and non-diabetic groups were 1.62 ± 0.65 and 1.96 ± 0.65, respectively (p = 0.681). Diabetic children visited dentists more often than non-diabetic children did (p = 0.04), and had lower consumption of both sweets (p = 0.003) and flavoured milk (p = 0.002) than the non-diabetic group. Furthermore, analysis showed that the diabetic children had medium oral pH levels (pH = 4.5–5.5), whereas the non-diabetic children tended to have high (pH ≥ 6.0) oral pH; this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.01). In addition, the diabetic group had higher Lactobacillus levels than the non-diabetic group (p = 0.04). Conclusion: The difference in caries prevalence between the diabetic and non-diabetic children was not statistically significant. The CRT analysis revealed a higher frequency of “critical” pH values (pH = 4.5–5.5) and higher Lactobacillus counts in diabetic children than in non-diabetic children, which indicated a higher caries risk in the former group