Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- MSD (2)
- dental assistant (2)
- dentist (2)
- prevalence (2)
- analgesics (1)
- dental assistants (1)
- dental health professional (1)
- dental profession (1)
- dental treatment concept (1)
- dentists (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
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.