DENTAL NOISE ATTENUATION

PROGRESS REPORT
Nadine Abdeljabbar, Kailin Baechle, Daniel Rittle
Ad

December 1, 2017
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

Table of Contents

1.0 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Updates to Preliminary Report ........................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Scope ................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Design Specifications ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Design Schedule .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.4 Team Responsibilities ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Design Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Earpieces .......................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Passive Earpiece ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Active Earpieces ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Handpiece Modifications ................................................................................................................ 5
3.2.1 Casings ...................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.2 Bur Extensions .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Internal Components ............................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Room-scale Solutions ..................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 10
4.1 Earpiece Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 Handpiece Modification Evaluation ............................................................................................. 11
4.3 Room-scale Solution Evaluation ................................................................................................. 13
5.0 Overview of Chosen Solution .......................................................................................................... 13
6.0 Proposed Budget ............................................................................................................................... 15
7.0 Appendix A ......................................................................................................................................... 16
8.0 Appendix B ......................................................................................................................................... 17
9.0 Appendix C ......................................................................................................................................... 18
10.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

1.0 Abstract
Dental professionals must work with noisy high-speed dental handpieces such as dental

drills to perform common procedures. These handpieces can reach sound power levels above

100 dB, which exceeds the acceptable continuous exposure threshold of 85 dB set by the

Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)1,2. This problem has been echoed

firsthand by dentists ranging from recent dental school graduates to retiring professionals. Studies

have shown that approximately 20% of dentists suffer from auditory disorders, and high-frequency

dental handpieces have been identified as a primary cause3,4. Even when hearing deficits are not

observed, many dental professionals have tinnitus resulting from dental noise. In addition to

causing long-term hearing deficits in dental professionals, high-frequency drill noise is also a

source of anxiety for patients undergoing dental procedures. Studies have shown that dental

anxiety affects approximately 30% of adults and 45% of children5. The anticipation of pain is the

driving factor behind dental anxiety, which is facilitated by the sound of the dental equipment6.

These findings indicate the need to address the problem of dental noise to improve the

satisfaction of both patients and practitioners in the dental industry. While providing noise

reduction in the high-frequency range, a solution must also allow both patients and practitioners

to communicate clearly and effectively. This report presents seventeen possible design

alternatives in three categories: earpieces, handpiece modifications, and room-scale solutions. A

Pugh chart analysis was used to evaluate each of the design alternatives and determine the best

possible solution. The best solution was determined to be the sound damping/absorbing material

outer casing design alternative with a score of 85%. If time and resources allow, the magnetic

inductor coil design with a score of 80% could be implemented in addition for added noise

reduction. However, with the experimental determination that appreciable noise radiates from the

entire length of the dental handpiece instead of being concentrated at the head, this solution is of

lower priority.

1
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

2.0 Updates to Preliminary Report

The preliminary report outlined the project scope, design requirements, existing solutions,

and team organization for this project. This section presents any changes to these areas since

the original preliminary report was submitted on October 6, 2017.

2.1 Project Scope

The initial project scope indicated a need for a noise reduction device for high-frequency

noise commonly found in dental offices and stated that a successful solution should reduce high-

frequency noise levels by at least 45%. Upon further investigation of current noise reduction

technologies for other implementations such as pneumatic nail guns, jackhammers, and kitchen

blenders, the measure of success for noise attenuation power was found to average a sound

power level reduction of 18 dB7,8,9. Given that average dental equipment produces noise at 90

dB, an 18 dB reduction would result in an average sound power level of 72 dB10. Thus, a

successful solution should reduce the sound power level by at least 20%.

2.2 Design Specifications

Similar to the project scope, the initial design specifications indicated an attenuation power

at high frequency of at least 45% attenuation. After additional research as stated above, the

attenuation power at high frequency specification has been adjusted to at least 20%. The resulting

average sound power level of 72 dB is approximately the noise level of television or radio audio,

so a decibel reduction of 20% will effectively fulfill the goal to reduce tinnitus and hearing loss for

dental practitioners and minimize anxiety for dental patients11.

2.3 Design Schedule

No changes to report.

2
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

2.4 Team Responsibilities

Since the preliminary report, tasks have been added to the team responsibility breakdown.

Nadine Abdeljabbar will be formatting and maintaining the project website, and Kailin Baechle will

take over the roles of writing and submitting weekly reports and obtaining materials.

3.0 Design Alternatives

In the preliminary report, three primary categories of possible solutions- an earpiece, a

handpiece modification, and a room-scale solution- were identified. Design alternatives were

brainstormed and drafted in each of these areas, and seventeen potential solutions are presented

in the following sections.

3.1 Earpieces
The earpiece design alternatives presented include one passive design and four active

designs. The design alternatives focus on the internal functional parts of the earpieces. Each of

the physical earpieces will be designed for maximum comfort of the user, including a durable

rubber or foam polymer molded to fit the ear cavity as well as minimal functional component

contact with the ear. The physical appearance of the earpiece will be designed with the patient in

mind to ensure that the appearance of the earpiece does not cause any fear or anxiety in the

patients dental experience.

3.1.1 Passive Earpiece

The passive tube earpiece design alternative (Figure 1) draws inspiration from the

cochlea, in that greater distance and additional bending in the path

traveled by sound waves result in greater attenuation of high

frequency sound. The human ear uses distance travelled through the

spiral-shaped cochlea to discriminate between different sound

Figure 1. Passive tube
frequencies, with high frequency sound travelling the shortest earpiece design.

3
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

distance into the cochlea12. This method of sound filtration could be implemented in an earpiece

to selectively attenuate high-frequency noise from the original signal input, specifically

frequencies greater than 3 kHz in the case of attenuating high-frequency dental drill noise.

3.1.2 Active Earpieces

Each of the active earpiece design alternatives contains a low-pass active filter circuit

designed to attenuate noise at high frequencies while leaving speech frequencies relatively

unaffected. All filters would be designed with a cutoff frequency of 2 kHz which is below the lower

bound of common dental drill noise, so signal frequencies of 0 Hz to 2 kHz will be allowed to pass

through the filter while greater frequencies will be attenuated. The primary differences between

the following design alternatives are the number of components required and the rate of roll-off.

The first-order low pass filter design alternative involves combining a resistor in series with

the parallel combination of a resistor and a capacitor across an operational amplifier. Therefore,

this design alternative requires two resistors and one capacitor. This design provides a rate of

roll-off of 20 dB/decade.

The second-order low pass filter design alternative is a more complex circuit, requiring

four resistors and two capacitors. The second-order filter can be considered two first-order filters

cascaded together with amplification. This design provides a rate of roll-off of 40 dB/decade.

The second-order Butterworth filter design alternative involves a special type of second-

order low pass filter. The frequency response of the Butterworth filter is referred to as maximally

flat because the pass band is designed to have a response that is as flat as mathematically

possible from 0 Hz until the cut-off frequency13. This design requires five resistors and two

capacitors and provides a rate of roll-off of 40 dB/decade. This design alternative was used for a

preliminary proof-of-concept simulation in MATLAB to show that the low pass filter design is

effective in attenuating the high-frequency noise of a dental drill sample.

4
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

The third-order low pass can be produced by cascading together a first-order low pass

filter with a second-order low pass filter, resulting in a required four resistors and three capacitors.

This design provides a rate of roll-off of 60 dB/decade. Higher order filters are not included due

to the constrained size of the earpiece.

3.2 Handpiece Modifications

The client currently uses the 85k RPM Stryker CORE impaction drill model handpiece.

This handpiece measures approximately 16 cm in length and 2.5 cm in diameter with a weight of

approximately 180 g. After handling the drill at the clients office, the primary source of noise was

determined to be the vibration caused by the gear shafts, gears, and bur movement, which causes

noise to radiate from the entire length of the handpiece. The handpiece modification design

alternatives are subdivided into three different groups: casings, bur extensions, and internal

components.

3.2.1 Casings

The casings division of handpiece modifications contains proposed design alternatives

that function by implementing a material casing with the existing dental drill. The casings group is

further divided into external casings, internal wall casings, and internal component casings.

3.2.1.1 External Casings

The vacuum external casing design alternative (Figure 2) involves adding a second metal

casing between 0.5 to 2 cm outside of the existing

handpiece casing. The second metal casing will be

made of aluminum or steel similar to existing

handpiece casings. Between the two metal layers, a Figure 2. Vacuum external casing design.

vacuum will be created to isolate the noise and vibrations within the dental drill. It is commonly

known that sound propagation does not effectively occur in a perfect vacuum due to the absence

of air medium through which sound waves travel. Preliminary research has been done to

5
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

determine whether vacuum isolation panels are effective in attenuating noise. Researchers at

London South Bank University determined that acoustic attenuation potential is exponentially

related to the percent vacuum level, but this relationship is only perceivable above the 90%

vacuum level14. Therefore, a great deal of development would be necessary to engineer a casing

that could withstand such a high load.

The sound damping/absorbing material external casing design alternative (Figure 3)

involves adding a sound damping or sound absorbing material sleeve to the outside of the existing

dental handpiece. Sound damping materials

are applied directly to vibrating surfaces to

convert noise energy and vibrations into low-

grade heat, while sound absorbing materials

Figure 3. Sound damping/absorbing material
are incorporated in the same region as noise external casing design.

propagation to reduce sound pressure by converting sound energy to heat within the material 15.

This sleeve would reduce the sound energy emitted by the handpiece by absorbing noise before

it reaches the environment. Adding a sound damping/absorbing material casing is a common

method of reducing noise levels produced by construction equipment as well as household

appliances such as hand mixers and blenders16,17,18.

3.2.1.2 Internal Wall Casings

The protrusions internal wall casing design alternative involves designing precise angular

protrusions attached to the inner wall of the handpiece with the goal of reflecting and cancelling

sound waves similar to the function of an automotive muffler. Mufflers function by using perforated

metal tubes to reflect sound waves and produce opposite waves to cancel sound through

destructive interference19. In a study by the Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America,

improving the muffler design in a pneumatic nail gun resulted in a 20 dB reduction in sound power

level20.

6
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

The sound damping/absorbing material internal wall casing design alternative (Figure 4)

involves adding a sound damping or sound absorbing material layer to the inside wall of the

existing dental handpiece. Similar to the sound

damping/absorbing material external casing

Figure 4. Sound damping/absorbing material
design alternative, this solution would reduce
internal wall casing design.
the sound energy emitted by the handpiece by absorbing noise before it reaches the environment

as proven by existing applications. Adding the acoustic material layer to the inner wall of the

handpiece rather than to the outside of the handpiece would cause no effect on the size of the

dental handpiece felt by the dental practitioner while manipulating the handpiece during common

procedures.

3.2.1.3 Internal Component Casings

The sound damping/absorbing material internal component casing design alternative

involves adding a sound damping or absorbing material layer only around the internal components

that produce the most noise. Differing from internal wall casing design alternative only in the

placement of the material layer, this solution would reduce the sound energy emitted by the

handpiece by absorbing noise before it reaches the environment as proven by existing

applications. Adding the material layer directly to the internal components of the handpiece rather

than to the internal wall of the dental handpiece will allow less distance for sound propagation

before the noise is absorbed.

The internal component casing fluid filling design alternative involves filling the dental drill

with a low viscosity, high density fluid to provide a different medium for the propagation of sound

waves and vibrations produced by the internal components of the dental handpiece. The fluid

must be low viscosity to allow effective spinning of the gear shafts to produce torque for the drill

to function and high density as density is inversely related to the speed of sound propagation

through a material21.

7
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

3.2.2 Bur Extensions

The air maze design alternative (Figure 5) utilizes the assumptions that (1) air is the

primary transmission medium for sound and (2) sound will be

naturally attenuated due to the conversion of pressure waves to

random heat motion. The air maze increases the distance and

path complexity through which air molecules must transmit

vibrations to reach the environment outside the drill. This maze is Figure 5. Air maze design.

applied to the head of the drill such that sound escaping from the bur is attenuated. This design

alternative does not require any modifications to the bur or the bur shaft design currently

implemented in the dental handpiece.

The bur maze design alternative is similar to the air maze design, with the exception that

this design involves modifications to the bur shaft such that the bur also follows the convoluted

path to which the air has been confined. As a result, the design requires multiple gears and gear

shafts to permit the bur to snake through the maze.

The magnetic inductor coil design alternative (Figure 6) involves the replacement of the

existing bur with a bar magnet oriented such that the north and

south poles are facing radially outward from the axis of rotation.

This bar magnet will spin within multiple angularly-staggered

solenoids that will produce a current in response to the changing

Figure 6. Magnetic
magnetic field produced by the spinning magnet. The current will inductor coil design.

then travel through wires to identical solenoids, which will produce magnetic fields. These

magnetic fields will rotate a second bar magnet that is directly connected to the bur. The

advantage of this design is that the energy transmission does not require direct mechanical

transmission (i.e. shaft and gears) but rather electrical transmission, thus enabling the noise-

producing gear system to be acoustically isolated from the surrounding environment.

8
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

3.2.3 Internal Components

The bur aperture design alternative (Figure 7) is based upon the assumption that the head

of the drill is a primary contributor to the drill noise experienced by dental professionals and

patients. This design alternative utilizes a design similar to a

camera aperture to provide a better seal around the bur. The bur

aperture would be designed to be manually opened for bur

placement and closed tightly to provide a seal between external Figure 7. Bur aperture design.

environment and internal components of the handpiece. While this aperture would close tightly, it

would not impede the high-speed rotation of the bur because a low-friction coating would be

incorporated at the site of bur contact.

The dual spinner design alternative is based on the concept that pressure waves can be

attenuated rapidly by the generation of a second destructive pressure wave possessing the same

frequency and amplitude. This design alternative includes a hollow shaft enveloping the bur shaft

which would spin in the opposite direction as the bur shaft, resulting in the intended phase shift

and effectively cancelling the vibrations and thus noise produced by the dental handpiece. This

design is currently being researched for potential implementation in kitchen blenders22.

3.3 Room-scale Solutions

One room-scale solution was proposed incorporating active noise cancelling on a room

scale involving the destructive superposition of pressure waves. This design alternative would

create a device to generate a three-dimensional digital mapping of the room and determine the

locations at which sound must be minimized. Based upon acoustical evaluation of the room, the

device would also determine the primary sources of noise. Finally, the device would perform

calculations and produce sound waves based upon those calculations which would superpose

destructively at the locations where noise must be minimized. As a result, islands of silence will

be formed around the ears of the individuals in the room whenever the drill is in operation.

9
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives

A Pugh chart was constructed to compare the proposed design alternatives. The criteria

for evaluation included cost, safety, ease of implementation (research, development, and labor

required to implement the solution), usability (the departure from current procedures required for

the dentist to use the solution including an average of the size and weight effects on the dentist

as well as additional time and effort involved with using the solution), sound attenuation power

(dB), power requirement, usable life, and durability. Each criterion was weighted for importance

on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being most important to the effectiveness and success of the

design. The most important criteria were determined to be safety (weighted 10), sound attenuation

power (weighted 9), and cost (weighted 8). Known test results for sound attenuation power were

used for as many proposed design alternatives as possible, but best logical estimations were

used in cases where no data was available. Criteria of moderate importance included ease of

implementation (weighted 7), usability (weighted 7), and durability (weighted 6). The least

important criteria were determined to be the usable life (weighted 3) and the power requirement

(weighted 2). The Pugh chart for the proposed earpiece design alternatives and room-scale

design alternative are shown in Appendix A followed by the Pugh chart for the proposed

handpiece modification design alternatives in Appendix B. The best solution was determined to

be the sound damping/absorbing material external casing design with a score of 85%. The design

alternative with the next highest score was the magnetic inductor coil design alternative with a

score of 80%. If time and resources allow, this design could be implemented in addition to the

sound damping/absorbing material external casing design for added noise reduction. However,

with the experimental determination that appreciable noise radiates from the entire length of the

dental handpiece instead of being concentrated at the head, this solution is of lower priority. The

following sections explain the considerations behind the rankings for each proposed design

alternative.

10
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

4.1 Earpiece Evaluation

All earpiece design alternatives have the benefit that no modification is made to the dental

handpiece itself, thus the operation of the dental handpiece during procedures is unaffected.

However, earpiece alternatives do not address the issue of dental noise at its source but instead

only mediate the issue by lessening the noise experienced by the patients and practitioners ears.

The implementation of an earpiece solution also adds appreciable time and effort required by the

dental professional because he/she must sterilize the patients earpiece between each use and

must make sure his/her earpieces and the patients earpieces are correctly inserted at the

beginning of each procedure in order for the noise reduction to be effective. The cost of the

earpiece alternatives is also great because two earpieces are required for each dental practitioner

exposed to the noise including the dentist, hygienist, and dental assistant as well as for each

patient chair.

The passive tube design alternative was determined to be the best earpiece solution

because the four active earpiece alternatives have additional downfalls. The active earpieces

require power from either a primary or rechargeable battery which must be periodically replaced

or recharged. The addition of a power source and circuit components also greatly increases the

cost of the earpiece as well as decreases the durability of the earpiece and introduces a potential

safety hazard if the battery were to leak or the internal components of the earpiece were to get

wet.

4.2 Handpiece Modification Evaluation

The handpiece modification design alternatives are more cost-effective than the earpiece

solutions because only one handpiece is required per patient chair. Beyond reasonable sound

reduction, cost is the most important factor to the client. The handpiece modifications also do not

require additional sterilization or require additional steps in advance of the procedure, with the

11
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

exception of the bur aperture design alternative which requires the dental practitioner to tighten

the aperture after the bur is inserted. However, the handpiece modification design alternatives

have the disadvantage that the handling of the dental handpiece during dental procedures could

be affected by changes in the size and weight of the handpiece. Thus, the dental practitioner may

require additional practice to effectively use the handpiece during procedures, resulting in greater

time and effort required by the dental practitioner to implement a handpiece modification solution.

The internal wall casing, internal component casing, and internal component design alternatives

require less adjustment for the dental practitioner because these solutions affect only the weight

of the handpiece without affecting the size. The external casing design alternatives will also not

require a great deal of adjustment because these solutions affect only the radial size of the

handpiece without affecting the length. The bur extension design alternatives would require the

greatest amount of adjustment because they affect the length and therefore the positioning of the

dental practitioners hands during the procedure.

The feasibility of implementation varies between the handpiece modification design

alternatives. The most feasible alternatives include the sound damping/absorbing external casing

internal component casing fluid, and the magnetic inductor coil. The sound damping/absorbing

external casing allows room for implementation and easy access to the implementation site,

whereas the internal wall casings and internal component casings require implementation with

limited space and accessibility within the dental handpiece and such implementation could

potentially hinder the existing internal components of the dental drill. The exception is the internal

component casing fluid, which can easily be implemented, but a fluid may damage the existing

internal components of the drill. Overall, this solution is risky, and leaks are a potential safety

hazard, so this solution should not be pursued. While the vacuum external casing also allows

room for implementation like the sound damping/absorbing external casing, this solution is

currently not feasible because the casing would need to withstand a very high load as sound

reduction is not observed beneath the 90% vacuum level as indicated in the design summary. Of

12
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

the bur maze extensions and internal components, the magnetic inductor coil is the most feasible

to implement because this solution incorporates the existing internal components of the

handpiece rather than implementing a completely separate modification.

Due to the limited adjustment required from the dental practitioner and feasibility of

implementation, the sound damping/absorbing material external casing was determined to be the

best solution, which is supported by the highest score of 85% resulting from the Pugh chart

analysis. This solution is also relatively low cost because few materials are required, and the

materials are easily machined. This solution does not require additional power, and the chosen

material(s) will be safe and durable to provide an effective solution. Most importantly, sound

absorbing materials commonly provide sound absorption coefficients between 0.9-1.0 for high-

frequency sound at low costs, which is explained in the overview of the chosen solution23.

4.3 Room-scale Solution Evaluation

The room-scale ambient noise cancelling design alternative was determined to be the

least beneficial solution to pursue with a score of 48% resulting from the Pugh chart analysis. The

technology behind such a solution has not been researched in depth for high frequency

applications. The cost and time to develop and effective solution would be very great and is not

in the scope of this class.

5.0 Overview of Chosen Solution

The chosen solution is the sound damping/absorbing material external casing design with

a Pugh analysis score of 85%. As stated in the Design Alternatives section, this solution involves

adding a sound damping or sound absorbing material sleeve to the outside of the existing dental

handpiece. Additional drawings can be found at the end of the report. To effectively implement

this solution, the casing material, thickness, and location must be considered.

13
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

As stated previously, sound absorbing materials commonly provide sound absorption

coefficients between 0.9-1.0 for high-frequency sound24. The sound absorption coefficient is a

frequency-dependent measure of the sound absorption capability of a material which ranges from

0 to 1, with 1 being full energy absorption into the material with no sound reflection. The noise

reduction coefficient (NRC) is another measurement used for commercial sound absorbing

materials which represents the average of the absorption coefficients of the material at 250, 500,

1000, and 2000 Hz25. Given that this implementation focuses specifically on reducing high-

frequency noise, it is most important that the chosen material has high sound absorption

coefficients at 2000 Hz and above.

To reduce the number of materials to test, a Pugh chart (Appendix C) was constructed to

compare commercially used sound absorbing and sound damping materials. The criteria for

evaluation included cost, durability, sound reduction, ease of installation, heat resistance, weight,

safety, and effective thickness. After evaluation, polyurethane acoustic foam, melamine acoustic

foam, and sound damping polymer were determined to be the best materials for this application.

Each of these materials is sold in various thicknesses. As previously stated in the design

specifications, the solution should add no more than 2 cm to the radius of the handpiece. Testing

will be required to determine the minimum thickness of material required to achieve appreciable

sound reduction. However, another dental professional has indicated that carpal tunnel is also an

issue for dentists due to the small size of the dental handpiece, so increasing the radius of the

handpiece may actually be beneficial.

The most effective location to implement the external sleeve will also be tested. A sleeve

that extends along the entire length of the handpiece is currently proposed. According to the client,

the most important factor in location is that the handpiece must remain balanced to be used

effectively in procedures. Another important factor involves the need for sterilization of the casing,

which becomes more emergent as the casing gets close to the drill head which enters the patients

14
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

mouth. To ensure that the dental handpiece will still be able to undergo the current sterilization

process over time, an easily removable casing is proposed to allow full sterilization of the

handpiece. An alcohol-resistant outer layer is also proposed for the casing to allow the casing to

be wiped down between each procedure without degrading over time.

6.0 Proposed Budget

An overview of the budget requested from the BME department is provided in Table 1.

The primary items include the acoustic materials, implementation materials (test foam, Xacto

knife, calipers, adhesive), and testing equipment totaling $132 requested.

Item Number Unit Cost Total Cost Source

Sound damping material 6 $12.00 $72.00 Sound Proof Cow
Polyurethane acoustic foam Sample - - SoundAway
Melamine acoustic foam Sample - - Acoustical solutions
Xacto knife 1 $6.00 $6.00 Amazon
Adhesive 1 $20.00 $20.00 Amazon
Calipers 1 $20.00 $20.00 Amazon
Test foam 2 $6.00 $12.00 Home Depot
Decibel measuring equipment - - - Dr. Dennis Barbour
Decibel App 1 $2.00 $2.00 Apple App Store
Total - - $132.00 -

Table 1. Itemized budget requested from the BME department totaling $132.
While the sound absorbing materials are inexpensive at a maximum of $10 per square

foot, acoustic materials are not commercially available in small quantities. However,

arrangements have been made with SoundAway, Polymer Technologies Inc, and Acoustical

Solutions to provide sample quantities of acoustic foams at no cost which should be suitable for

testing and prototyping purposes. The sound damping material strips are available in small

quantities, and 6 strips are requested. A spray can of 3M adhesive is requested to implement the

material casing, and test foam is requested to test implementation methods before using the

limited samples. An Xacto knife and calipers may be able to be located in the department and

thus may not need to be purchased. Dr. Barbour has approved use of his laboratory equipment

for sound level testing, but he suggested we also purchase an iPhone app called SoundMeter+.
15
 Passive earpiece Active earpiece Room-scale

Criterion Weight 1-10 Passive tube 1st order LPF 2nd order LPF 2nd order BTW 3rd order LBF Ambient NC

Cost 8 6 4 4 4 3 1

Size effect on dentist 5 5 5 5 5 3

Weight effect on dentist 10 10 10 10 10 6

Dental Noise Attenuation

Time/effort effect on dentist 3 2 2 2 2 8

7.0 Appendix A

Usability 7 6 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67

Sound Attenuation Power* 9 5 6 6 7 7 8

Feasibility of Implementation 7 5 9 9 9 9 1

Power Requirement 2 10 4 4 4 4 1

Durability 6 9 4 4 4 4 8

Safety 10 10 7 7 7 7 5

16
Usable Life 3 7 5 5 5 5 7

Total 520 365 306 306 315 307 248

Percent 100 70 59 59 61 59 48

Appendix A. Pugh chart comparing the passive and active earpiece design alternatives as well as
the proposed room-scale design alternative. Designs are compared on eight criteria including cost,
usability (average of size, weight, and time/effort effect on the dentist), sound attenuation power,
feasibility of implementation, power requirement, durability, safety, and usable life. Each design
alternative is finally given a total percentage score.
December 1, 2017
 Internal
External Internal wall component Internal
casing casing casing Bur extension component
mag
air bur ind dual
Criterion Weight 1-10 vacuum d/a protrusions d/a d/a fluid maze maze coil aperture spinner

Cost 8 8 8 6 9 9 6 7 7 9 7 7
Dental Noise Attenuation

Size effect on
8.0 Appendix B

dentist 8 8 10 10 10 10 6 3 7 10 9
Weight effect on
dentist 5 8 5 8 8 2 3 3 8 3 8
Time/effort effect on
dentist 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 9

Usability 7 7.33 8.33 8 9 9 7 5.67 4.67 7.67 6.67 8.67

Sound Attenuation
Power* 9 6 6 7 6 6 6 4 4 5 5 5

17
Feasibility of
Implementation 7 5 10 2 3 1 10 4 2 9 6 3
Power Requirement 2 10 10 4 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 8
Durability 6 8 8 7 9 9 9 7 2 9 8 9
Safety 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 9 8 8 9 9
Usable Life 3 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 7 9 9 6
Total 520 402 444 361 414 400 405 339 268 415 375 361
Percent 100 77 85 69 80 77 78 65 52 80 72 69

Appendix B. Pugh chart comparing the handpiece modification solutions including external casings,
internal wall casings, internal component casings, bur extensions, and internal component. Designs are
compared on eight criteria including cost, usability (average of size, weight, and time/effort effect on the
dentist), sound attenuation power, feasibility of implementation, power requirement, durability, safety, and
usable life. Each design alternative is finally given a total percentage score.
December 1, 2017
 Sound absorbing materials Sound damping materials
Weight Polyurethane Melamine Mineral Polymer Polymer
Criterion 1-5 foam foam Cotton fiberglass sheet liquid
Cost 5 4 4 5 5 1 5
Durability 4 4 3 5 4 5 4
Sound reduction 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
Dental Noise Attenuation

Ease of installation 3 5 5 3 3 5 1
9.0 Appendix C

Heat resistance 3 4 5 5 5 5 5
Weight 3 5 5 5 4 5 5
Safety 5 5 5 4 4 5 4
Effective thickness 4 3 3 1 3 5 5
Total 160 140 139 133 134 140 134

18
Percent 100 88 87 83 84 88 84

Appendix C. Pugh chart comparing potential sound absorbing and sound damping materials to be
implemented with the chosen external casing design alternative. Materials are compared on eight
criteria including cost, durability, sound reduction, ease of installation, heat resistance, weight,
safety, and effective thickness. Each material is finally given a total percentage score.
December 1, 2017
Dental Noise Attenuation December 1, 2017

10.0 References
1 Hyson, J.M. The air turbine and hearing loss. Are dentists at risk? J Am Dent Assoc,
2002;133:16391642.
2 OSHA Noise Regulations. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States

Department of Labor, www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/standards.html.

3 Gijbels, F., Jacobs, R., Princen, K. et al. Clin Oral Invest (2006) 10: 8.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0003-6
4 Mervine, Rebecca. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Dental Offices. PennWell CE. N.d. Web.
5 Keating-Biltucci, Mary Therese. Fear and Anxiety in the Dental Environment. RDH

Magazine, vol. 31, no. 7, 1 July 2011.

6 Alty, Cathleen Terhune. High Anxiety in the Dental Office. RDH Magazine, vol. 34, no. 8, 22

Aug. 2014.
7 Visnapuu, Aarne, and James W. Jensen. Noise Reduction of a Pneumatic Rock Drill. Bureau

of Mines, vol. TN23.U7, no. 8082, ser. 622.06173, 1975.

8 Controlling Noise on Construction Sites. Laborer's Health and Safety Fund of North America,

www.lhsfna.org/LHSFNA/assets/File/bpguide%202014.pdf.
9 Herrin, D.W. Sound Absorbing Materials. Noise and Vibration Short Course, University of

Kentucky Department of Mechanical Engineering.

10 Mervine, Rebecca. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Dental Offices. PennWell CE. N.d. Web.
11 Comparative Examples of Noise Levels. Industrial Noise Control, iac Acoustics, 2017,

www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm.
12 Rebillard, Guy, and Rmy Pujol. Cochlea: Function. Journey into the World of Hearing,

Universit Numrique Francophone Pour Les Sciences De La Sant Et Du Sport, 22

Dec. 2016, 4:58PM, www.cochlea.eu/en/cochlea/function.
13 Butterworth Filter Design. Electronics Tutorials, AspenCore, Inc, 2014, www.electronics-

tutorials.ws/filter/filter_8.html.
14 Walters, Sheldon, and Stephen Dance. Noise Control Potential of Vacuum Isolation

Panels. Inter-Noise, 2014.

15 What We Make. Technicon Acoustics, Technicon Acoustics, 2012,

www.techniconacoustics.com/what-we-make.
16 Electrolux Innovates Again the Quietest Blender Ever. Consumer Trends, 27 July 2010.
17 LeBaron, Abel Dayer. Quiet Blender. 6 Jan. 2011.
18 Visnapuu, Aarne, and James W. Jensen. Noise Reduction of a Pneumatic Rock

Drill. Bureau of Mines, vol. TN23.U7, no. 8082, ser. 622.06173, 1975.
19 Nice, Karim. How Mufflers Work. HowStuffWorks, HowStuffWorks, 19 Feb. 2001,

www.auto.howstuffworks.com/muffler3.htm.
20 Controlling Noise on Construction Sites. Laborer's Health and Safety Fund of North

America, www.lhsfna.org/LHSFNA/assets/File/bpguide%202014.pdf.
21 The Speed of Sound in Other Materials. NDT Resource Center, NSF Advanced

Technological Education, www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/.

22 Buzian, Vanderlei. Silent Blender. 8 Oct. 2009.
23 Datasheet Page. Polymer Technologies Inc., 2017, www.polytechinc.com/forms/datasheets.
24 Datasheet Page. Polymer Technologies Inc., 2017, www.polytechinc.com/forms/datasheets.
25 Sound Absorbing Structures and Materials. Engineering Acoustics, Wikibooks, 2017.

19