Refine
Document Type
- Article (12)
Language
- English (12)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (12)
Keywords
- MSD (4)
- prevalence (4)
- dental profession (3)
- dentist (3)
- dental assistant (2)
- dental assistants (2)
- dental education (2)
- dentists (2)
- ergonomics (2)
- kinematic analysis (2)
Institute
- Medizin (12)
- Sportwissenschaften (2)
- Biochemie und Chemie (1)
- Psychologie (1)
Background: Despite the numerous associations of vitamin D with health and disease, vitamin D deficiency is still common from a global perspective. While basic research, clinical and preventive activities grow constantly in vitamin D research, there is no in-depth analysis of the related global scientific productivity available so far.
Methods: Density equalizing mapping procedures (DEMP) were combined with socioeconomic benchmarks using the NewQIS platform.
Results: A total of 25,992 vitamin D-related research articles were identified between 1900 to 2014 with a significant increase (r2 = .6541) from 1900 to 2014. Authors located in Northern America – especially in the USA – distributed the majority of global vitamin D research, followed by their Western European counterparts. DEMP-analysis illustrates that Africa and South America exhibit only minor scientific productivity. Among high-income group countries, Scandinavian nations such as Denmark or Finland (2147.9 and 1607.7 vitamin D articles per GDP in 1000 billion USD) were highly active with regard to socioeconomic figures.
Conclusion: Networks dedicated to vitamin D research are present around the world. Overall, the Northern American and Western European nations occupy prominent positions. However, South American, African and Asian countries apart from Japan only play a minor role in the global research production related to vitamin D. Since vitamin D deficiency is currently increasing in the Americas, Europe and parts of the Middle East, research in these regions may need to be encouraged.
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.