Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Orthopaedics (1)
- Translational research (1)
- ergonomics (1)
- inertial motion capture (1)
- inertial sensors (1)
- kinematic analysis (1)
- musculoskeletal disorders (1)
- risk assessment (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Comparative values are essential for the classification of orthopedic abnormalities and the assessment of a necessary therapy. At present, reference values for the upper body posture for healthy, male adults exist for the age groups of 18–35, 31–40 and 41–50 years. However, corresponding data on the decade of 51 to 60 year-old healthy men are still lacking. 23 parameters of the upper body posture were analyzed in 102 healthy male participants aged 51–60 (55.36 ± 2.78) years. The average height was 180.76 ± 7.81 cm with a weight of 88.22 ± 14.57 kg. The calculated BMI was 26.96 ± 3.92 kg/m2. In the habitual, upright position, the bare upper body was scanned three-dimensionally using video raster stereography. Mean or median values, confidence intervals, tolerance ranges and group comparisons, as well as correlations of BMI and physical activity, were calculated for all parameters. The spinal column parameters exhibited a good exploration of the frontal plane in the habitual standing position. In the sagittal plane, a slight, ventral inclination of the trunk with an increased kyphosis angle of the thoracic spine and increased thoracic bending angle was observed. The parameters of the pelvis showed a pronounced symmetry with deviations from the 0° axis within the measurement error margin of 1 mm/1°. The scapula height together with the scapula angles of the right and left side described a slightly elevated position of the left shoulder compared to the right side. The upper body posture is influenced by parameters of age, height, weight and BMI. Primarily there are significant correlations to measurements of trunk lengths D (age: p ≤ 0.02, rho = -0.23; height: p ≤ 0.001, rho = 0.58; weight: p ≤ 0.001, rho = 0.33), trunk lengths S (age: p ≤ 0.01, rho = -0.27; height: p ≤ 0.001, rho = 0.58; weight: p ≤ 0.001, rho = 0.32), pelvic distance (height: p ≤ 0.01, rho = 0.26; weight: p ≤ 0.001, rho = 0.32; BMI: p ≤ 0.03, rho = 0.22) and scapula distance (weight: p ≤ 0.001, rho = .32; BMI: p ≤ 0.01, rho = 0.27), but also to sagittal parameters of trunk decline (weight: p ≤ 0.001, rho = -0.29; BMI: p ≤ 0.01, rho = -0.24), thoracic bending angle (height: p ≤ 0.01, rho = 0.27) and kyphosis angle (BMI: p ≤ 0.03, rho = 0.21). The upper body posture of healthy men between the ages of 51 and 60 years was axially almost aligned and balanced. With the findings of this investigation and the reference values obtained, suitable comparative values for use in clinical practice and for further scientific studies with the same experimental set-up have been established.
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.