Systematic review of hearing loss in dental professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hearing loss leads to increased irritability and disengagement in social activities and conversations, which may impact quality of life. Dental professionals are at risk of developing hearing loss through daily exposure to noise from a wide range of equipment that produces significantly high decibels and noise frequencies. AIMS: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the risk of hearing loss in dental professionals, including dentists, dental specialists, dental hygienists and dental assistants. METHODS: This review was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Science Direct, Google Scholar and ProQuest were searched up to March 2023. Seventeen of 416 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies, and a modified version of this tool for cross-sectional studies. RESULTS: The majority of included studies (82%) found a positive association with hearing loss for dentists and dental specialists, with years of clinical experience identified as a prominent risk factor. Dental hygienists and dental assistants were less commonly reported in the literature. Difference between the left and right ears was found in 71% of studies, with the left ear more affected in both dentists and dental assistants due to proximity to the noise-inducing equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Dental professionals are at risk of hearing loss in their workplace, especially linked to years of clinical experience, which highlights the need for prevention and appropriate ear-protective devices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".