Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (15) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- Behandlungsposition (2)
- Body posture (2)
- Dentists (2)
- Körperhaltung (2)
- Musculoskeletal diseases (2)
- Muskuloskeletale Erkrankungen (2)
- Postural control (2)
- Treatment position (2)
- ergonomics (2)
- kinematic analysis (2)
Institute
Objectives: Inadequate oral hygiene still leads to many serious diseases all over the world. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze scientific research in the field of oral health in order to be able to comprehend their relevant subject areas, research connections, or developments. Methods: This study aimed to assess the global publication output on oral hygiene to create a world map that provides background information on key players, trends, and incentives of research. For this purpose, established bibliometric parameters were combined with state-of-the-art visualization techniques. Results: This study shows the actual key players of research on oral hygiene in high-income economies with only marginal participation from lower economies. This still corresponds to the current burden situations, but they are more and more shifting to the disadvantage of the low-income countries. There is a clear North–South and West–East gradient, with the USA and the Western European nations being the most publishing nations on oral hygiene. As an emerging country, Brazil plays a role in the research. Conclusions: The scientific power players were concentrated in high-income countries. However, the changing epidemiological situation requires a different scientific approach to oral hygiene. This requires an expansion of the international network to meet the demands of future global oral health burdens, which are mainly related to oral hygiene.
Background: In clinical practice range of motion (RoM) is usually assessed with low-cost devices such as a tape measure (TM) or a digital inclinometer (DI). However, the intra- and inter-rater reliability of typical RoM tests differ, which impairs the evaluation of therapy progress. More objective and reliable kinematic data can be obtained with the inertial motion capture system (IMC) by Xsens. The aim of this study was to obtain the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the TM, DI and IMC methods in five RoM tests: modified Thomas test (DI), shoulder test modified after Janda (DI), retroflexion of the trunk modified after Janda (DI), lateral inclination (TM) and fingertip-to-floor test (TM).
Methods: Two raters executed the RoM tests (TM or DI) in a randomized order on 22 healthy individuals while, simultaneously, the IMC data (Xsens MVN) was collected. After 15 warm-up repetitions, each rater recorded five measurements.
Findings: Intra-rater reliabilities were (almost) perfect for tests in all three devices (ICCs 0.886–0.996). Inter-rater reliability was substantial to (almost) perfect in the DI (ICCs 0.71–0.87) and the IMC methods (ICCs 0.61–0.993) and (almost) perfect in the TM methods (ICCs 0.923–0.961). The measurement error (ME) for the tests measured in degree (°) was 0.9–3.3° for the DI methods and 0.5–1.2° for the IMC approaches. In the tests measured in centimeters the ME was 0.5–1.3cm for the TM methods and 0.6–2.7cm for the IMC methods. Pearson correlations between the results of the DI or the TM respectively with the IMC results were significant in all tests except for the shoulder test on the right body side (r = 0.41–0.81).
Interpretation: Measurement repetitions of either one or multiple trained raters can be considered reliable in all three devices.
Background: In general, the prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) in dentistry is high, and dental assistants (DA) are even more affected than dentists (D). Furthermore, differentiations between the fields of dental specialization (e.g., general dentistry, endodontology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, or orthodontics) are rare. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the ergonomic risk of the aforementioned four fields of dental specialization for D and DA on the one hand, and to compare the ergonomic risk of D and DA within each individual field of dental specialization. Methods: In total, 60 dentists (33 male/27 female) and 60 dental assistants (11 male/49 female) volunteered in this study. The sample was composed of 15 dentists and 15 dental assistants from each of the dental field, in order to represent the fields of dental specialization. In a laboratory setting, all tasks were recorded using an inertial motion capture system. The kinematic data were applied to an automated version of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Results: The results revealed significantly reduced ergonomic risks in endodontology and orthodontics compared to oral and maxillofacial surgery and general dentistry in DAs, while orthodontics showed a significantly reduced ergonomic risk compared to general dentistry in Ds. Further differences between the fields of dental specialization were found in the right wrist, right lower arm, and left lower arm in DAs and in the neck, right wrist, right lower arm, and left wrist in Ds. The differences between Ds and DAs within a specialist discipline were rather small. Discussion: Independent of whether one works as a D or DA, the percentage of time spent working in higher risk scores is reduced in endodontologists, and especially in orthodontics, compared to general dentists or oral and maxillofacial surgeons. In order to counteract the development of WMSD, early intervention should be made. Consequently, ergonomic training or strength training is recommended.
Hintergrund: Dehntrainings sind eine Maßnahme der betrieblichen Gesundheitsförderung (BGF) für Büroangestellte zur Prävention von muskuloskeletalen Erkrankungen (MSE). Sie können zu Beweglichkeitszuwächsen führen und auf psychischer Ebene entspannen. Ziel der Studie war es, ein standardisiertes und individualisiertes Dehntraining am Gerät, das „five-Business“, auf MSE, Lebensqualität und Beweglichkeit zu untersuchen. Dies ist eine Zusammenfassung der international publizierten Ergebnisse.
Methodik: In diese Untersuchung wurden 252 Proband(innen) eingeschlossen, 156 in die Interventionsgruppe (IG), 96 in die Kontrollgruppe (KG). Die IG absolvierte für 12 Wochen 22–24 Trainingseinheiten am „five-Business“, möglichst zweimal wöchentlich. Die Datenerhebung erfolgte mittels sportmotorischer bzw. Range-of-motion(ROM)-Tests, dem Nordic Questionnaire (NQ) und dem SF-36-Fragebogen in Form einer Prä-Post-Untersuchung.
Ergebnisse: Nach der Intervention gaben im NQ signifikant weniger Proband(innen) der IG Beschwerden im oberen Rücken (p < 0,001) im Vergleich zur KG an; keine signifikanten Unterschiede wurden bei Beschwerden im Nacken, Schultern, Hüfte und dem unteren Rücken gefunden. Der mit dem SF-36 erhobene allgemeine Gesundheitszustand und die gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität haben sich (nach subjektiven Angaben) signifikant verbessert (Summenscore IG: p = 0,005). In den ROM-Tests waren die Prä-Post-Differenzen bei IG-Proband(innen) in der Sagittalebene (Finger-Boden-Abstand und Retroflexion; p < 0,001) und im modifizierten Schultertest nach Janda auf der linken Seite (p = 0,003) signifikant größer.
Diskussion: Trotz des in Zeitdauer und Häufigkeit relativ geringen Trainingsaufwandes wurden sowohl auf körperlicher als auch auf psychischer Ebene relevante Verbesserungen erzielt, so dass das „five-Business“-Dehntraining als BGF-Maßnahme empfohlen werden kann.
In the application of range of motion (ROM) tests there is little agreement on the number of repetitions to be measured and the number of preceding warm-up protocols. In stretch training a plateau in ROM gains can be seen after four to five repetitions. With increasing number of repetitions, the gain in ROM is reduced. This study examines the question of whether such an effect occurs in common ROM tests. Twenty-two healthy sport students (10 m/12 f.) with an average age of 25.3 ± 1.94 years (average height 174.1 ± 9.8 cm; weight 66.6 ± 11.3 kg and BMI 21.9 ± 2.0 kg/cm2) volunteered in this study. Each subject performed five ROM tests in a randomized order—measured either via a tape measure or a digital inclinometer: Tape measure was used to evaluate the Fingertip-to-Floor test (FtF) and the Lateral Inclination test (LI). Retroflexion of the trunk modified after Janda (RF), Thomas test (TT) and a Shoulder test modified after Janda (ST) were evaluated with a digital inclinometer. In order to show general acute effects within 20 repetitions we performed ANOVA/Friedman-test with multiple comparisons. A non-linear regression was then performed to identify a plateau formation. Significance level was set at 5%. In seven out of eight ROM tests (five tests in total with three tests measured both left and right sides) significant flexibility gains were observed (FtF: p < 0.001; LI-left/right: p < 0.001/0.001; RF: p = 0.009; ST-left/right: p < 0.001/p = 0.003; TT-left: p < 0.001). A non-linear regression with random effects was successfully applied on FtF, RF, LI-left/right, ST-left and TT-left and thus, indicate a gradual decline in the amount of gained ROM. An acute effect was observed in most ROM tests, which is characterized by a gradual decline of ROM gain. For those tests, we can state that the acute effect described in the stretching literature also applies to the performance of typical ROM tests. Since a non-linear behavior was shown, it is the decision of the practitioner to weigh up between measurement accuracy and expenditure. Researchers and practitioners should consider this when applying ROM assessments to healthy young adults.
Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit Arbeitsabläufen und physischen Risikofaktoren von Zahnärzt/innen (ZA) und Zahnmedizinischen Fachangestellten (ZFA), die zu gesundheitlichen Schäden des Muskel-Skelett-Systems führen. Dabei soll besonders auf das Arbeitsfeld „Patientenmund“ sowie die Arbeitsbelastung und deren Auswirkung auf die Gesundheit eingegangen werden. Ferner werden die optimale Sitzhaltung und physische Anforderungen statischer und repetitiver Behandlungspositionen sowie -haltungen von ZA und ZFA diskutiert.
Die traditionellen Behandlungspositionen der Zahnärzt/innen hinter, neben und vor dem/r Patienten/in führen zur asymmetrischen Neigung und Verdrehung des Kopfes sowie des Rumpfes. Die Folge können Fehlhaltungen sein, die Muskel-Skelett-Erkrankungen verursachen. Das erklärt wahrscheinlich die hohe Prävalenz bei Zahnärzt/innen und zahnmedizinischen Fachangestellten. Daher werden in dieser Übersicht mögliche Ursachen und Konsequenzen der Prävalenz sowie ergonomische Maßnahmen für diese Berufsgruppen aufgeführt. Zudem erläutern wir ergonomische Empfehlungen für die Sitzhaltung von Zahnärzt/innen auf Basis der vorhandenen Literatur.
Background; Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are a common health problem among dentists. Dental treatment is mainly performed in a sitting position. The aim of the study was to quantify the effect of different ergonomic chairs on the sitting position. In addition, it was tested if the sitting position of experienced workers is different from a non-dental group.
Methods; A total of 59 (28 m/31f) subjects, divided into two dentist groups according to their work experience (students and dentists (9 m/11f) < 10 years, dentists (9 m/10f) ≥ 10 years) and a control group (10 m/10f) were measured. A three-dimensional back scanner captured the bare back of all subjects sitting on six dentist’s chairs of different design. Initially, inter-group comparisons per chair, firstly in the habitual and secondly in the working postures, were carried out. Furthermore, inter-chair comparison was conducted for the habitual as well as for the working postures of all subjects and for each group. Finally, a comparison between the habitual sitting posture and the working posture for each respective chair (intra-chair comparison) was conducted (for all subjects and for each group). In addition, a subjective assessment of each chair was made.
For the statistical analysis, non-parametric tests were conducted and the level of significance was set at 5%.
Results: When comparing the three subject groups, all chairs caused a more pronounced spinal kyphosis in experienced dentists. In both conditions (habitual and working postures), a symmetrical sitting position was assumed on each chair.
The inter-chair comparisons showed no differences regarding the ergonomic design of the chairs. The significances found in the inter-chair comparisons were all within the measurementerror and could, therefore, be classified as clinically irrelevant.
The intra-chair comparison (habitual sitting position vs. working sitting position) illustrated position-related changes in the sagittal, but not in the transverse, plane. These changes were only position-related (forward leaned working posture) and were not influenced by the ergonomic sitting design of the respective chair. There are no differences between the groups in the subjective assessment of each chair.
Conclusions; Regardless of the group or the dental experience, the ergonomic design of the dentist’s chair had only a marginal influence on the upper body posture in both the habitual and working sitting postures. Consequently, the focus of the dentist’s chair, in order to minimize MSD, should concentrate on adopting a symmetrical sitting posture rather than on its ergonomic design.
The aim of this study was to investigate gender-specific influences of different symmetric and asymmetric occlusion conditions on postural control during standing and walking. The study involved 59 healthy adult volunteers (41 f/19 m) aged between 22 and 53 years (30.2 ± 6.3 years). Postural control measurements were carried out using a pressure plate by measuring plantar pressure distribution during standing and walking test conditions. Seven different occlusion conditions were tested. Prior to a MANOVA model analysis, the relationship between the two test conditions were checked using a factor analysis with a varying number of factors (between 2 and 10). The plantar pressure distributions during walking and standing are independent test conditions. The coefficient of variance across all variables between the conditions and genders was not significant: t(46) = 1.51 (p = 0.13). No statement can be made whether, or not, the influence of gender is greater than the influence of the conditions. Healthy male and female test subjects did not show any difference between seven occlusion conditions on the plantar pressure distribution while standing or walking. No differences between the genders were found for any of the investigated variables. In contrast to custom-made occlusion splints, simple cotton rolls appear not to influence the neuromuscular system in a systematic manner.
Traditional ergonomic risk assessment tools such as the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) are often not sensitive enough to evaluate well-optimized work routines. An implementation of kinematic data captured by inertial sensors is applied to compare two work routines in dentistry. The surgical dental treatment was performed in two different conditions, which were recorded by means of inertial sensors (Xsens MVN Link). For this purpose, 15 (12 males/3 females) oral and maxillofacial surgeons took part in the study. Data were post processed with costume written MATLAB® routines, including a full implementation of RULA (slightly adjusted to dentistry). For an in-depth comparison, five newly introduced levels of complexity of the RULA analysis were applied, i.e., from lowest complexity to highest: (1) RULA score, (2) relative RULA score distribution, (3) RULA steps score, (4) relative RULA steps score occurrence, and (5) relative angle distribution. With increasing complexity, the number of variables times (the number of resolvable units per variable) increased. In our example, only significant differences between the treatment concepts were observed at levels that are more complex: the relative RULA step score occurrence and the relative angle distribution (level 4 + 5). With the presented approach, an objective and detailed ergonomic analysis is possible. The data-driven approach adds significant additional context to the RULA score evaluation. The presented method captures data, evaluates the full task cycle, and allows different levels of analysis. These points are a clear benefit to a standard, manual assessment of one main body position during a working task.