Refine
Document Type
- Article (28)
Has Fulltext
- yes (28)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (28)
Keywords
- MSD (4)
- Postural control (4)
- ergonomics (4)
- inertial motion capture (4)
- prevalence (4)
- Musculoskeletal diseases (3)
- dental profession (3)
- dentist (3)
- musculoskeletal disorders (3)
- Musculoskeletal system (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: Dental professionals are subjected to higher risks for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) than other professional groups, especially the hand region. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of hand complaints among dentists (Ds) and dental assistants (DAs) and examines applied therapies. Methods: For this purpose, an online questionnaire analysed 389 Ds (240female/149male) and 406 DAs (401female/5male) working in Germany. The self-reported data of the two occupational groups were compared with regard to the topics examined. The questionnaire was based on the Nordic Questionnaire (self-reported lifetime, 12-month and 7-day MSDs prevalence of the hand, the conducted therapy and its success), additional occupational and sociodemographic questions as well as questions about specific medical conditions. Results: 30.8% of Ds affirmed MSDs in the hand at any time in their lives, 20.3% in the last twelve months and 9.5% in the last seven days. Among DAs, 42.6% reported a prevalence of MSDs in the hand at any time in their lives, 31.8% in the last 12 months and 15.3% in the last seven days. 37.5% of the Ds and 28.3% of the DAs stated that they had certain treatments. For both, Ds and DAs, physiotherapy was the most frequently chosen form of therapy. 89.7% of Ds and 63.3% of DAs who received therapy reported an improvement of MSDs. Conclusion: Although the prevalence of MSDs on the hand is higher among DAs than among Ds, the use of therapeutic options and the success of therapy is lower for DAs compared to Ds.
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.
Triathletes often experience incoordination at the start of a transition run (TR); this is possibly reflected by altered joint kinematics. In this study, the first 20 steps of a run after a warm-up run (WR) and TR (following a 90 min cycling session) of 16 elite, male, long-distance triathletes (31.3 ± 5.4 years old) were compared. Measurements were executed on the competition course of the Ironman Frankfurt in Germany. Pacing and slipstream were provided by a cyclist in front of the runner. Kinematic data of the trunk and leg joints, step length, and step rate were obtained using the MVN Link inertial motion capture system by Xsens. Statistical parametric mapping was used to compare the active leg (AL) and passive leg (PL) phases of the WR and TR. In the TR, more spinal extension (~0.5–1°; p = 0.001) and rotation (~0.2–0.5°; p = 0.001–0.004), increases in hip flexion (~3°; ~65% AL−~55% PL; p = 0.001–0.004), internal hip rotation (~2.5°; AL + ~0–30% PL; p = 0.001–0.024), more knee adduction (~1°; ~80–95% AL; p = 0.001), and complex altered knee flexion patterns (~2–4°; AL + PL; p = 0.001–0.01) occurred. Complex kinematic differences between a WR and a TR were detected. This contributes to a better understanding of the incoordination in transition running.
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.
Background: The aim of this pilot study was to analyze postures during the work of neurologists with respect to their occupational activities.
Methods: A total data material of 64.8 h (3885.74 min) of nine (three m/six f) neurologists (assistant physicians) was collected. Kinematic data were collected using the CUELA system (electro-goniometry). In addition, the occupational tasks performed on-site were subject to a detailed objective activity analysis. All activities were assigned to the categories "Office activities" (I), "Measures on patients" (II) and "Other activities" (III). The angle values of each body region (evaluation parameters) were evaluated according to ergonomic ISO standards.
Results: Only 3.4% of the working hours were spent with (II), while 50.8% of time was spent with (I) and 45.8% with (III). All tasks of category (II) revealed an increased ergonomic risk to the head, neck, trunk and back areas. During category (I) especially neck and back movements in the sagittal plane showed higher ergonomic risk levels.
Conclusion: Despite frequently performed awkward body positions in (II), the ergonomic risk is considered as rather low, since the percentage time share totaled only 3.4%. As a result, "Office activities" have been detected as high predictor to cause stress load on the musculoskeletal system in the daily work of neurologists.
Die vorliegende Übersicht zum Biomarker „Lipoprotein(a) – Lp(a)“ wird im Rahmen der Serie Diagnostika des Zentralblatts für Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie publiziert, die sich mit dem immer häufigeren Gebrauch der Bestimmung von spezifischen Markern bei sog. Manager-Vorsorgen und Check-up-Untersuchungen beschäftigt. Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), eignet sich grundsätzlich nicht für solche Vorsorgen, sondern ist ein Marker zur Risikoabschätzung der peripheren arteriellen Verschlusskrankheit. Hier zeigt dieser eine hohe Sensitivität und Spezifität, wobei der Marker aber auf keinen Fall als Screeningparameter zur Frühdiagnostik eingesetzt werden sollte.
Background: The aim of this study was to collect standard reference values of the weight and the maximum pressure distribution in healthy adults aged 18–65 years and to investigate the influence of constitutional parameters on it.
Methods: A total of 416 healthy subjects (208 male / 208 female) aged between 18 and 65 years (Ø 38.3 ± 14.1 years) participated in this study, conducted 2015–2019 in Heidelberg. The age-specific evaluation is based on 4 age groups (G1, 18–30 years; G2, 31–40 years; G3, 41–50 years; G4, 51–65 years). A pressure measuring plate FDM-S (Zebris/Isny/Germany) was used to collect body weight distribution and maximum pressure distribution of the right and left foot and left and right forefoot/rearfoot, respectively.
Results: Body weight distribution of the left (50.07%) and right (50.12%) foot was balanced. There was higher load on the rearfoot (left 54.14%; right 55.09%) than on the forefoot (left 45.49%; right 44.26%). The pressure in the rearfoot was higher than in the forefoot (rearfoot left 9.60 N/cm2, rearfoot right 9.51 N/cm2/forefoot left 8.23 N/cm2, forefoot right 8.59 N/cm2). With increasing age, the load in the left foot shifted from the rearfoot to the forefoot as well as the maximum pressure (p ≤ 0.02 and 0.03; poor effect size). With increasing BMI, the body weight shifted to the left and right rearfoot (p ≤ 0.001, poor effect size). As BMI increased, so did the maximum pressure in all areas (p ≤ 0.001 and 0.03, weak to moderate effect size). There were significant differences in weight and maximum pressure distribution in the forefoot and rearfoot in the different age groups, especially between younger (18–40 years) and older (41–65 years) subjects.
Discussion: Healthy individuals aged from 18 to 65 years were found to have a balanced weight distribution in an aspect ratio, with a 20% greater load of the rearfoot. Age and BMI were found to be influencing factors of the weight and maximum pressure distribution, especially between younger and elder subjects. The collected standard reference values allow comparisons with other studies and can serve as a guideline in clinical practice and scientific studies.
Background: To detect deviations from a normal postural control, standard values can be helpful for comparison purposes. Since the postural control is influenced by gender and age, the aim of the present study was the collection of standard values for women between 31 and 40 years of age.
Methods: For the study, 106 female, subjectively healthy, German subjects aged between 31 and 40 years (35 ± 2.98 years) were measured using a pressure measuring platform.
Results: Their average BMI was 21.60 ± 4.65 kg/m2. The load distribution between left and right foot was almost evenly balanced with a median 51.46% load on the left [tolerance interval (TR) 37.02%/65.90%; confidence interval (CI) 50.06/52.85%] and 48.54% [TR 43.10/62.97%; CI 47.14/49.93%] on the right foot. The median forefoot load was 33.84% [TR 20.68/54.73%; CI 31.67/37.33%] and the rearfoot load was measured at 66.16% [TR 45.27/79.33%; CI 62.67/68.33%]. The median/mean body sway in the sagittal plane was measured 12 mm [TR 5.45/23.44 mm; CI 11.00/14.00 mm] and 8.17 mm in the frontal plane [TR 3.33/19.08 mm; CI 7.67/9.33 mm]. The median of the ellipse area is 0.72 cm2 [TR 0.15/3.69 cm2; CI 0.54/0.89°]. The ellipse width has a median of 0.66 cm [TR 0.30/1.77 cm; CI 0.61/0.78 cm] and the height of 0.33 cm [TR 0.13/0.71 cm; CI 0.30/0.37 cm]. The ellipse angle (sway, left forefoot to right rearfoot) has a mean of − 19.34° [TR − 59.21/− 0.44°; CI − 22.52/− 16.16°] and the ellipse angle sway from right forefoot to left rearfoot has a mean of 12.75° [TR 0.09/59.09°; CI 9.00/16.33°].
Conclusion: The right-to-left ratio is balanced. The forefoot-to-rearfoot ratio is approximately 1:2. Also, the body sway can be classified with 12 and 8 mm as normal. The direction of fluctuation is either approx. 19° from the left forefoot to the right rearfoot or approx. 13° the opposite. Body weight, height, and BMI were comparable to the German average of women in a similar age group, so that the measured standard values are representative and might serve as baseline for the normal function of the balance system in order to support the diagnosis of possible dysfunctions in postural control.
Standard values of the upper body posture in healthy adults with special regard to age, sex and BMI
(2023)
In order to classify and analyze the parameters of upper body posture in clinical or physiotherapeutic settings, a baseline in the form of standard values with special regard to age, sex and BMI is required. Thus, subjectively healthy men and women aged 21–60 years were measured in this project. The postural parameters of 800 symptom-free male (n = 397) and female (n = 407) volunteers aged 21–60 years (Ø♀: 39.7 ± 11.6, Ø ♂: 40.7 ± 11.5 y) were studied. The mean height of the men was 1.8 ± 0.07 m, with a mean body weight of 84.8 ± 13.1 kg and an average BMI of 26.0 ± 3.534 kg/m2. In contrast, the mean height of the women was 1.67 ± 0.06 m, with a mean body weight of 66.5 ± 12.7 kg and an average BMI of 23.9 ± 4.6 kg/m2. By means of video rasterstereography, a 3-dimensional scan of the upper back surface was measured when in a habitual standing position. The means or medians, confidence intervals, tolerance ranges, the minimum, 2.5, 25, 50, 75, 97.5 percentiles and the maximum, plus the kurtosis and skewness of the distribution, were calculated for all parameters. Additionally, ANOVA and a factor analyses (sex, BMI, age) were conducted. In both sexes across all age groups, balanced, symmetrical upper body statics were evident. Most strikingly, the females showed greater thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis angles (kyphosis: Ø ♀ 56°, Ø♂ 51°; lordosis: Ø ♀ 49°, Ø♂ 32°) and lumbar bending angles (Ø ♀ 14°, Ø♂ 11°) than the males. The distance between the scapulae was more pronounced in men. These parameters also show an increase with age and BMI, respectively. Pelvic parameters were independent of age and sex. The upper body postures of women and men between the ages of 21 and 60 years were found to be almost symmetrical and axis-conforming with a positive correlation for BMI or age. Consequently, the present body posture parameters allow for comparisons with other studies, as well as for the evaluation of clinical (interim) diagnostics and applications.