Open AccessOccupational Exposure of Dentists to Extremely‐low‐frequency Magnetic Field
Author(s) -
Huang ShuMin,
Lin YuWen,
Sung FungChang,
Li ChungYi,
Chang MingFong,
Chen PeiChun
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of occupational health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 59
ISSN - 1348-9585
DOI - 10.1539/joh.o10024
Subject(s) - occupational exposure , medicine , occupational medicine , dental clinic , family medicine , personal protective equipment , university hospital , dosimeter , dentistry , environmental health , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , disease , covid-19 , infectious disease (medical specialty)
Occupational Exposure of Dentists to Extremely‐low‐frequency Magnetic Field: Shu‐Min Huang, et al. Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, Fu‐Jen Catholic University, Taiwan—Objective To compare occupational exposure to extremely‐low‐frequency magnetic field (ELF‐MF) between dentists practicing in dental clinics and those employed in hospitals. Methods Thirty‐two dentists who worked at clinics (n=15) and 33 dentists employed at hospital dental departments (n=7) voluntarily provided their informed consent to participate in this measurement study. The study dentists were requested to wear an ELF‐MF dosimeter for some 3 h at work to determine their personal exposure. Spot measurements taken at a number of locations in each dental ofice were used to indicate the work environment exposure level. Additionally, ELF‐MF emitted from common dental equipment was also measured. All measurements were performed with EMDEX Lite meters. Results The average environmental exposure to ELF‐MF is higher in clinic dental ofices than in hospital dental departments (0.55 vs. 0.15 µT, p=0.008). Personal dosimetry showed that on average, clinic dentists spent 35.71 and 19.39% of their time at exposures above 0.3 and 0.4 µT at work, respectively. The corresponding igures for hospital dentists were 19.61 and 13.92%. Additionally, ELF‐MF was greater than 0.4 µT at 30 cm from all selected equipment, but the ELF‐MF generally diminished as the distance from dental equipment increased. Uultraviolet air sterilization system produced 3 times as much ELF‐MF as other dental equipment. Conclusions This study suggests the possibility of over‐exposure of dentists to power frequency ELF‐MF. Additionally, certain dental equipment may produce ELF‐MF levels greater than 0.4 µT in areas where dentists usually work when treating patients.