PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Eye Protective Devices”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 595 records · Page 33Linked to original sources
PubMed1991

Effects of ultraviolet light on the eye: role of protective glasses.

Global atmospheric changes such as depletion of ozone in the stratosphere are thought to lead to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation on earth. This can have adverse effects on human health, and long-term effects of ultraviolet light on the eye are of increasing concern. Ultraviolet light exposure to the eye has been associated with cataract formation and retinal degeneration. In both cases, it is hypothesized that ultraviolet light can initiate formation of free radicals, which can cause protein modification and lipid peroxidation. Several procedures can be recommended to prevent ultraviolet light damage to the eye, such as the use of suitable protective glasses when outdoors.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Barriers and benefits of protective eyewear use by Latino farm workers.

Agricultural work is one of the riskiest occupations for the eyes. Protective eyewear can prevent eye injuries in upward of 90% of cases. Latino migrant and seasonal farm workers (LFWs) are at particular risk of eye injury because of economic, social, and cultural barriers to safe employment. The goal of this project was to determine the perceived benefits and barriers to use of protective eyewear during agricultural work among LFWs. In the year 2000, 55 workers who spent at least part of their time working in Illinois and Michigan as seasonal, hired farm workers were interviewed either individually (9) or in six focus groups (46) regarding their perceptions of eye hazards and the factors that encourage or discourage the use of protective eyewear. Subsequently, safety glasses and training on eye safety were delivered by promotores de salud to LFWs from the same cohort over two summer seasons. During the second season, the promotores observed the use of safety eyewear by farm workers at least once per week on 17 farms over a three-month period. At each point of observation, the promotores asked those wearing the glasses why they chose to wear them and those who were not wearing them, why not. At both points of the study (pre-intervention interviews and post-intervention observations), the reasons for use fell into the following categories: protection from hazards, appearance, whether it was mandated/provided by the employer, and whether others used it. The reasons for non-use include perceived lack of protection, discomfort, undesirable appearance, interference with visual acuity, slowing down the work pace, and no mandate from employers. Since eliminating the eye injury hazard is not possible in most agricultural settings, administrative strategies and use of personal protective equipment are critical. Perceptions of the target audience, LFWs, should be used to develop a comprehensive eye safety program; this should include allowing LFWs to select a style from effective prototypes, providing eyewear and promoting/mandating its use in hazardous job tasks, and implementing a comprehensive PPE program for eye safety. In addition, addressing functional problems - falling off, fogging, loss and forgetting glasses, the pace slowdown that reduces production and leads to lower wages for workers - should be addressed.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed2002

Epistaxis and conjunctival contamination--are our ENT trainees at risk?

The aims of this study were to assess the risk of conjunctival contamination with blood during the treatment of epistaxis and to identify if certain patients and treatments may pose a higher risk. Protective eye-wear worn by ENT trainees during the ward management of epistaxis was examined for contamination with blood splashes. This occurred in 18% of cases. The incidence of contamination was higher when two treatment modalities were required and when treating elderly female patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1985

Visible light-cured composites and activating units. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment.

In summary, visible light-activated composites offer better regulation of working time. Their composition differs from chemically activated composites only in the initiators and activators. The physical and mechanical properties of adequately polymerized photoactivated composites are similar to chemically activated composites. Depth of cure evaluations of the photoactivated composites are dependent on many factors, both experimental and inherent. There is currently no consensus on depth of cure values and evaluation methods. It is suggested that, if necessary, visible light-activated composites should be placed and polymerized in about 2-mm increments. It is prudent to use a longer exposure time. Exposure of visible light composites to dental operatory lights or strong ambient lighting (or both) during restorative procedures should be minimized to avoid premature polymerization. There are differences in design, spectral distribution, and radiation intensity of photoactivating light units. No definitive information is currently available on the effectiveness and optimal conditions for use of different light/composite combinations. Little information is currently available on the bioeffect of visible light radiation on human optical systems and oral tissue. At the present time there are reports of afterimages but no long-lasting bioeffects. It is strongly recommended that precautions should be taken in the care, use, and operation of photoactivating light units. Protective filter glasses should be used.

Chemical Phenomena↗
PubMed1986

An evaluation of lenses designed to block light emitted by light-curing units.

A number of protective lenses are available to prevent ocular injury from wavelength spectrum generated by visible light. Four of the five lenses tested absorbed virtually all of the radiation transmitted in the 200 to 800 nm level. Protective eyewear should be used when blue and ultraviolet light-curing units are involved.

Composite Resins↗
PubMed1986

Evaluation of light transmission characteristics of protective eyeglasses for visible light-curing units.

Eyeglasses with protective filters are recommended for users of visible light-curing units to decrease the intensity of blue light reaching the eyes. The transmission curves of 20 commercially available filter glasses are obtained. The irradiance from eight curing units through these glasses is measured. The reduction in irradiance through the filter glasses is related to the transmission curves.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1987

Stability of safety glasses during sterilization and disinfection.

Awareness of the necessity for physical barriers as essential components of an infection control program for dental practice has led to increased use of gloves, masks, and protective eyewear. Because eyewear is not disposable, it could serve as a source of cross-contamination and should be disinfected between patients. This study investigates the optical stability of two types of safety glasses after various sterilization/disinfection procedures.

Communicable Disease Control↗
PubMed1989

Infection control practices of Minnesota dentists: changes during 1 year.

In 1986, a survey of all licensed Minnesota dentists (N = 2,752) was conducted to determine current infection control practices. In 1987, the survey was repeated with a 45% random sample of all Minnesota dentists (N = 1,357) to monitor changes in such practices during 1 year. The findings indicate that dentists made dramatic changes in their routine use of barrier techniques and also, that rates of vaccination against hepatitis B increased decidedly. Younger dentists had higher vaccination rates and use of routine barrier techniques. Although dentists' reluctance to treat patients with AIDS decreased in frequency, some dentists still refuse to treat these patients. However, a substantial majority will treat patients with other infectious diseases.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

How infection control procedures are affecting dental practice today.

The past couple of years have given U.S. dentists a lot to think about. OSHA regulations, a declining economy, lingering concerns about fluoridation, dental amalgam and safety in health care settings have captured the attention of dentists everywhere.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2001

Dental clinical attire and infection-control procedures. Patients' attitudes.

BACKGROUND: The authors surveyed adults in military and civilian dental practices about infection-control procedures and clinical attire to see if patients' attitudes had changed with the alteration of infection-control procedures over the last two decades. METHODS: The authors surveyed 1,500 adults, using a written questionnaire at two military hospital dental practices and at four civilian dental offices, which included two general practices, one periodontal practice and one orthodontic practice. RESULTS: The authors found that the use of name tags and patient safety glasses during treatment were preferred by 52.0 percent and 53.4 percent, respectively, of respondents in military facilities. Respondents had no preference about dentists' clothing, use of protective glasses for examinations or head cover use. A majority of respondents preferred that dentists wear glasses when performing treatment (54.1 percent), and 77.4 percent of respondents preferred that dentists wear masks when providing their care. Respondents preferred the use of plastic barriers, and 63.0 percent said it made them feel confident that proper infection-control procedures were followed. A majority of respondents (52.3 percent) said they would be concerned if barriers were not used. CONCLUSIONS: Military and civilian respondents had similar perceptions of infection-control procedures. Respondents said they preferred that dentists wear name tags in group practices and use masks and protective glasses when performing treatment. The use of plastic barriers made respondents feel confident that proper infection-control procedures were being followed. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study can be used by dental practices to review their infection-control procedures and how patients perceive them. Dentists may decide to implement some of these procedures, especially those that are not required, and that improve customer satisfaction.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Paintball injuries in children: more than meets the eye.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the increasing incidence of ocular injuries in the pediatric population caused by paintballs. The awareness of this trend will help the physician who treats the child to give appropriate care as well as educate physicians, who counsel children, about this growing mechanism of pediatric injuries. METHODS: Previously unpublished data from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission were analyzed to find the frequency of ocular injuries in children. A review of the English-language literature was also conducted to describe trends with regard to age, sex, location at the time of injury, use of eye protection, types of injuries sustained, and long-term visual outcome. RESULTS: The incidence of paintball eye injuries treated in emergency departments has risen from an estimated 545 in 1998 to >1200 in 2000. The proportion of these injuries that occurred in the pediatric population may be well over 40%. These injuries are seen predominantly in boys, a growing proportion of whom are playing informally in unsupervised settings and not wearing eye protection. The cases previously reported include large numbers of hyphemas, retinal detachments, cataracts, corneal abrasions, vitreous hemorrhages, and commotio retina. Many of the patients in these cases sustained permanent visual impairment, with 43% having best vision at follow-up of 20/200 or worse. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric eye injuries caused by paintballs are an unrecognized cause of severe injury and permanent visual loss. The advances in eye protection for participants in "war games" have had little if any effect on the youngest population. Children and teens are unlikely to wear eye protection voluntarily when playing at undesignated or unsupervised locations. Changes should be made to restrict availability of these very dangerous but easily acquired guns and ammunition. Practitioners must counsel young people and their caregivers to avoid injuries by wearing appropriate eye protection. Parents should supervise the use of paintball equipment as they would other activities that involve high-speed projectiles.

Adolescent↗