Open Access

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: In clinical practice range of motion (RoM) is usually assessed with low-cost devices such as a tape measure (TM) or a digital inclinometer (DI). However, the intra- and inter-rater reliability of typical RoM tests differ, which impairs the evaluation of therapy progress. More objective and reliable kinematic data can be obtained with the inertial motion capture system (IMC) by Xsens. The aim of this study was to obtain the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the TM, DI and IMC methods in five RoM tests: modified Thomas test (DI), shoulder test modified after Janda (DI), retroflexion of the trunk modified after Janda (DI), lateral inclination (TM) and fingertip-to-floor test (TM). Methods: Two raters executed the RoM tests (TM or DI) in a randomized order on 22 healthy individuals while, simultaneously, the IMC data (Xsens MVN) was collected. After 15 warm-up repetitions, each rater recorded five measurements. Findings: Intra-rater reliabilities were (almost) perfect for tests in all three devices (ICCs 0.886–0.996). Inter-rater reliability was substantial to (almost) perfect in the DI (ICCs 0.71–0.87) and the IMC methods (ICCs 0.61–0.993) and (almost) perfect in the TM methods (ICCs 0.923–0.961). The measurement error (ME) for the tests measured in degree (°) was 0.9–3.3° for the DI methods and 0.5–1.2° for the IMC approaches. In the tests measured in centimeters the ME was 0.5–1.3cm for the TM methods and 0.6–2.7cm for the IMC methods. Pearson correlations between the results of the DI or the TM respectively with the IMC results were significant in all tests except for the shoulder test on the right body side (r = 0.41–0.81). Interpretation: Measurement repetitions of either one or multiple trained raters can be considered reliable in all three devices.

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.

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: 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.