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.