www.medenosrce.net/arhimed   arhimed(a-t>medenosrce.net   [22/04/2026 01:30:18] http://www.medenosrce.net/arhimed/poglej.asp?id=154 PRIZADETOST SLUHA PRI STOMATOLOGIH LJUBLJANSKE REGIJE Avtor: Damir Škripec Mentor: prof. dr. Lojze Šmid IZHODIŠCE: Stomatologi so pri svojem vsakdanjem delu izpostavljeni hrupu, ki ga proizvajajo turbinski kolencnik, kolencnik na mikromotor, klasicni in vakuumski aspirator ter aparati za pripravo materiala in sterilizacijo inštrumentov, kar lahko po dolocenem casu privede do okvare sluha. NAMEN: Namen pricujoce raziskave je bil oceniti sluh pri stomatologih. Želeli smo tudi izmeriti dnevno in tedensko izpostavljenost stomatologov hrupu med delovnim casom na dveh tipicnih delovnih mestih. HIPOTEZA: Postavili smo delovno hipotezo da imajo stomatologi slabši sluh kot primerljivi vrstniki, ki hrupu na delovnem mestu niso izpostavljeni. METODE: Sluh smo preverili pri 60 stomatologih ljubljanske regije, ki so se prostovoljno prijavili po prejetem vabilu. Razdelili smo jih v pet skupin glede na starost (n>5 v vsaki skupini). Sluh stomatologov smo ocenili s tonsko pražno avdiometrijo (TPA). Rezultate smo primerjali s kontrolno skupino, ki se je s preiskovanci ujemala v spolu in starosti. Rezultate TPA smo statisticno ovrednotili z dvosmernim t-testom za neodvisne spremenljivke. Ovrednotili smo tudi dnevno in tedensko obremenitev s hrupom med delovnim casom v dveh tipicnih stomatoloških ordinacijah. REZULTATI: Razlika v slušnem pragu med stomatologi, mlajšimi od 50 let in njihovimi vrstniki, ki hrupu na delovnem mestu niso izpostavljeni, je statisticno znacilna tako v govornih (p=0,029 pri starostni skupini 31-40 let, p=0,015 pri starostni skupini 41-50 let) kot tudi v visokih frekvencah (p=0,002 pri starostni skupini 31-40 let, p<0,001 pri starostni skupini 41-50 let). Ta razlika je opazna tudi pri stomatologih starejših od 50 let, vendar statisticno ni znacilna. Najvecja razlika v premiku slušnega praga nastane po 10 do 12 letih delovne dobe v hrupnem okolju. Kasneje se sluh pri stomatologih sicer še slabša, a se razlika v slušnem pragu med njimi in kontrolno skupino pocasi izenacuje. Meritve dnevne in tedenske obremenitve s hrupom v obeh ordinacijah niso presegle najnižje vrednosti, ki jo še merilna naprava zazna (80dB(A)). ZAKLJUCKI: Potrdili smo hipotezo, da imajo stomatologi slabši sluh kot njihovi vrstniki. Dnevna ali tedenska raven hrupa med delovnim casom v stomatološki ordinaciji ne presega z zakonom predpisane maksimalne vrednosti. Rezultati naše raziskave kažejo, da lahko zaradi dolgotrajne izpostavljenosti hrupu pride do okvare sluha tudi, kadar hrup v stomatološki ordinaciji ne presega z zakonom dovoljene najvišje dnevne ali tedenske vrednosti. Zaradi tega izgleda uporaba zašcitnih mer vsaj v casu maksimalne obremenitve s hrupom smiselna. «» [Abstract / English version] PRIZADETOST SLUHA PRI STOMATOLOGIH LJUBLJANSKE REGIJE Author: Damir Škripec Mentor: prof. dr. Lojze Šmid BACKGROUND: Dentists are in their working environment exposed to noise, produced by air-driven and micro-motor driven handpieces, classical and high-speed aspirators, apparatuses needed to prepare material and some of the sterilization units. Such exposure could lead to noise-induced hearing damage. AIM: The aim of the study was to asses the severity of hearing impairment of dentists. We also wanted to measure daily and weekly amount of noise emitted during working time. HYPOTHESIS: Our working hypothesis was that dentists' hearing is worse than that of matched population not exposed to such noise. METHODS: Hearing was tested on 60 dentists from Ljubljana region who voluntarily joined the study after receiving an invitation. They were grouped according to age in five groups (n>5 for each group). Hearing was assessed using pure-tone audiometry. Results obtained from pure-tone audiometry were compared with audiologicaly normal, age and sex adjusted population, by using two-way independent sample t-test. RESULTS: The difference in hearing threshold differed significantly from that of control group, especially that of dentists younger than 50 years. The difference was statistically different in lower frequencies (p=0.029 in age group 31-40 years, p=0.015 in age group 41-50 years) as well as in high frequencies (p=0.002 in age group 31-40 years, p<0.001 in age group 41-50 years). The difference in hearing threshold was also noticed in age groups older than 50 years, but wan not statistically different. The maximum change in hearing threshold occurs during 10-12 years of exposure to noise. After that the hearing threshold continues to shift upward, but the difference in hearing thresholds between test and control group slowly decreases. Measurements of daily and weekly immision of noise during working time did not even reach the minimal level of noise which the measuring device registers (80 dB(A)). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed our hypothesis that dentists have worse hearing than audiologicaly normal population. Daily and weekly immision of noise during working time does not exceed maximum level prescribed by law. The results of our study show that exposition to noise over a period of clinical work can lead to hearing impairment in dentists, even if the daily or weekly maximum level of noise prescribed by law is not exceeded. Thus this leads us to conclusion that hearing protectors, if one wants to preserve his or her hearing, should be used while working, even if just for the time of maximal level of exposure to noise.