Refine
Document Type
- Article (16)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16)
Keywords
- MSD (4)
- prevalence (4)
- dental profession (3)
- dentist (3)
- ergonomics (3)
- Behandlungsposition (2)
- Body posture (2)
- Körperhaltung (2)
- Musculoskeletal diseases (2)
- Treatment position (2)
Institute
- Medizin (16)
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.
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.
Background: Dentists are at a higher risk of suffering from musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) than the general population. However, the latest study investigating MSD in the dental profession in Germany was published about 20 years ago. Therefore, the aim of this study was to reveal the current prevalence of MSD in dentists and dental students in Germany. Methods: The final study size contained 450 (287 f/163 m) subjects of different areas of specialization. The age of the participants ranged from 23 to 75 years. The questionnaire consisted of a modified version of the Nordic Questionnaire, work-related questions from the latest questionnaire of German dentists, typical medical conditions and self-developed questions. Results: The overall prevalence showed that dentists suffered frequently from MSD (seven days: 65.6%, twelve months: 92%, lifetime: 95.8%). The most affected body regions included the neck (42.7%–70.9%–78.4%), shoulders (29.8%–55.6%–66.2%) and lower back (22.9%–45.8%–58.7%). Overall, female participants stated that they suffered from pain significantly more frequently, especially in the neck, shoulders and upper back. Conclusion: The prevalence of MSD among dentists, especially in the neck, shoulder and back area, was significantly higher than in the general population. In addition, women suffered more frequently from MSD than men in almost all body regions.
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.
Background: Dentists (Ds) and dental assistants (DAs) have a high lifetime prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). In this context, it is assumed that they have an increased intake of substances such as pain medication. Currently, there exist no data on the use of medication among Ds and DAs with MSDs in Germany. Methods: The online questionnaire (i.e., the Nordic Questionnaire) analysed the medical therapies used by 389 Ds (240 f/149 m) and 406 DAs (401 f/5 m) to treat their MSDs. Results: Ds (28.3–11.5%) and DAs (29.4–10.3%) with MSDs took medication depending on the affected body region. A trend between the Ds and DAs in the intake of drug therapy and the frequency was found for the neck region (Ds: 21.1%, DAs: 28.7%). A single medication was taken most frequently (Ds: 60.0–33.3%, DAs: 71.4–27.3%). The frequency of use varied greatly for both occupational groups depending on the region affected. Conclusion: Ds and DAs perceived the need for medical therapies because of their MSDs. Painkillers such as ibuprofen and systemic diclofenac were the medications most frequently taken by both occupational groups. The intake of pain killers, most notably for the neck, should prevent sick leave.
Background: dental professionals suffer frequently from musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). Dentists and dental assistants work closely with each other in a mutually dependent relationship. To date, MSD in dental assistants have only been marginally investigated and compared to their occurrence in dentists. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of MSD between dentists and dental assistants by considering occupational factors, physical activity and gender. Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study. A Germany-wide survey, using a modified version of the Nordic Questionnaire and work-related questions, was applied. In total, 2548 participants took part, of which 389 dentists (240 females and 149 males) and 322 dental assistants (320 females and 2 males) were included in the analysis. Data were collected between May 2018 and May 2019. Differences between the dentists and dental assistants were determined by using the Chi2 test for nominal and the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U test for both ordinal and non-normally distributed metric data. Results: A greater number of dental assistants reported complaints than dentists in all queried body regions. Significant differences in the most affected body regions (neck, shoulders, wrist/hands, upper back, lower back and feet/ankles) were found for the lifetime prevalence, annual prevalence and weekly prevalence. Data from the occupational factors, physical activity and gender analyses revealed significant differences between dentists and dental assistants. Conclusions: Dental assistants appear to be particularly affected by MSD when compared to dentists. This circumstance can be explained only to a limited extent by differences in gender distribution and occupational habits between the occupations.
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.
Background: Vacuum cleaning, which is associated with musculoskeletal complaints, is frequently carried out in private households and by professional cleaners. The aim of this pilot study was to quantify the movements during habitual vacuuming and to characterize the movement profile with regard to its variability. Methods: The data were collected from 31 subjects (21 f/10 m) using a 3D motion analysis system (XSens). Eight vacuum cleaners were used to vacuum polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and carpet floors. In 15 joints of the right upper extremity, the trunk and the lower extremities, Principal Component Analysis was used to determine the predominantly varying joints during vacuuming. Results: The movements of the trunk and the lower extremities were relatively constant and, therefore, had less influence. The shoulder, elbow and wrist joints were identified as joints that can be decisive for the movement profile and that can be influenced. These joints were represented in the course of the vacuuming cycle by the mean movement with its standard deviation. Conclusion: In summary, the generalization of a movement profile is possible for the trunk and the lower extremities due to the relative homogeneity. In future it will be necessary to identify factors influencing variability in order to draw conclusions about movement ergonomics.
Background: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are common among dental professionals. The most common areas affected are the trunk, neck, shoulders and wrists. Current evidence suggests that the causes of MSD can be found in the physical demands of the profession. Posture and movement during treatment is influenced by the arrangement of the treatment concept (patient chair, equipment and cabinets). It has not been investigated whether the ergonomic risk differs between the treatment concepts.
Methods: To evaluate the prevalence of MSD in dental professionals, 1000 responses will be collected from a nationwide (Germany) online questionnaire (mod. Nordic Questionnaire and mod. Meyer questionnaire). In order to assess the ergonomic risk of the treatment techniques used in the four treatment concepts, 3D movement analyses are carried out with inertial sensors. For this purpose, 20 teams of dentists and dental assistants from four dental fields of specializations (generalists, orthodontists, endodontists and oral surgeons) and a student control group will be recruited. Each team will execute field specific standardized treatments at a dummy head. Measurements are carried out in each of the four treatment concepts. The data will be analyzed using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) which will be modified for the evaluation of objective data.
Conclusions: On the basis of these investigations, a substantial gain of knowledge regarding work-related MSD in the field of dentistry and its potential biomechanical causes is possible. For the first time, objective and differentiated comparisons between the four treatment concepts are possible for different fields of dental specialization. Up to now, statically held positions of the trunk and proximal upper extremities, but also the repetitive movements of the hands have been considered a risk for MSD. Since both are included in the RULA, dental activities can be assessed in a detailed but also global manner with regard to ergonomic risks.
Zur ergonomischen Beurteilung von Arbeitsplätzen werden „ergonomic risk assessment tools“ (ERAT) verwendet. Mithilfe dieser kann die körperliche Belastung evaluiert und hinsichtlich eines biomechanischen Überlastungsrisikos bewertet werden. Dazu gehören neben Eigenangaben auch observatorische Methoden, deren Ergebnisse in Punktwerten („Scores“) zusammengefasst werden, wie z. B. die RULAMethode („rapid upper limb assessment“). Durch die technische Weiterentwicklung direkter Messmethoden können inertiale Motion-Capture-Systeme im 21. Jahrhundert präzise und kontinuierliche objektive Daten liefern. In einem neuen Ansatz wurde die observatorische Scoring-Methode RULA modifiziert und auf die digital erhobenen Daten angewendet, was differenzierte ergonomische Betrachtungen ganzer Arbeitsabläufe ermöglicht.
The occupation of dental assistants (DAs) involves many health risks of the musculoskeletal system due to static and prolonged work, which can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence of MSDs in DAs in Germany. Methods: For this purpose, an online questionnaire analyzed 406 (401 female participants and 5 male participants, 401w/5m) DAs. It was based on the Nordic Questionnaire (lifetime, 12-month, and seven-day MSDs’ prevalence separated into neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, upper back, lower back, hip, knee, and ankle), and occupational and sociodemographic questions as well as questions about specific medical conditions. Results: 98.5% of the participants reported complaints of at least one body region in their lives, 97.5% reported at least one complaint in the last 12 months and 86.9% affirmed at least one complaint in the last seven days. For lifetime, 12-month and seven-day prevalence, the neck was the region that was most affected followed by the shoulder, the upper back and the lower back. Conclusion: The prevalence of MSDs among German (female) DAs was very high. The most affected area is the neck, followed by the shoulder, the lower back, and the upper back. It, therefore, seems necessary to devote more attention to ergonomics at the working practice of DAs as well in education and in dental work.
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.
Musculoskeletal disorders of the trunk and neck are common among cleaners. Vacuum cleaning is a demanding activity. The aim of this study was to present the movement profile of the trunk and neck during habitual vacuuming. The data were collected from 31 subjects (21f./10 m) using a 3D motion analysis system (Xsens). 10 cycles were analysed in vacuuming PVC and carpet floors with 8 vacuum cleaners. The joint angles and velocities were represented statistically descriptive. When vacuuming, the trunk is held in a forwardly inclined position by a flexion in the hip and rotated from this position. In the joint angles and velocities of the spine, the rotation proved to be dominant. A relatively large amount of movement took place in the cervical spine and also in the lumbar spine. The shown movement profile is rather a comfort area of vacuuming which may serve as a reference for ergonomics in vacuuming.
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.
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.