Ergonomic Risk Assessment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons - RULA Applied to Objective Kinematic Data.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders is high in oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OS) due to their static and contorted working positions. Hence, the aim of this study was to conduct posture analyses in this specific group of dental professionals using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). METHODS: In total, 15 (12 m/3 f) OS participated in this study. An inertial motion capture system (Xsens) was used to collect kinematic data during a simulated workflow. Computer-based routines calculated the RULA score for the extracted joint angles at each defined time point. Then, an analysis of the time-dependent RULA scores by body regions was conducted. Key variables were the relative occurrence of specific RULA scores during the complete workflow, individual subtasks, and for treatment of each of the four different dental quadrants. The subtasks and dental quadrants were compared using the Friedman test. RESULTS: The total median RULA score represented a high risk for OS during their work (7), including the temporal component (OS spent 77.54% of their working time with a RULA score of 7). The wrists and hands, elbows, lower arms, and the neck were exposed to postures with the highest risk for musculoskeletal strain. DISCUSSION: For OS, both the right and the left assisting hand were heavily strained while working on the first dental quadrant caused the most unfavorable postures for OS.

A RULA-Based Comparison of the Ergonomic Risk of Typical Working Procedures for Dentists and Dental Assistants of General Dentistry, Endodontology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and Orthodontics.

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.

Effects of Resistance Training as a Behavioural Preventive Measure on Musculoskeletal Complaints, Maximum Strength and Ergonomic Risk in Dentists and Dental Assistants.

INTRODUCTION: For dental professionals, musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are common health hazards and resistance training programmes have been promising approaches in the quest for a reduction in the pain intensity of these professionals. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of a trunk-oriented 10-week resistance training programme. METHOD: In total, the study was conducted with 17 dentists and dental assistants (3 m/14 f) over a course of 10 weeks, with workouts being performed 2 times a week using a 60 min intervention programme consisting of 11 resistance training exercises. The outcome values that were collected were the pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS) combined with a modified version of the Nordic Questionnaire), the MVIC and the rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) score (based on data from inertial motion units) during a standardised dental treatment protocol. RESULTS: A significant reduction in pain intensity was found for each queried body region: the neck, upper back, lower back and the right and left shoulders. The maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) improved significantly in all outcome measures: flexion, extension, right and left lateral flexion and right and left rotation. CONCLUSIONS: A 10-week resistance training programme for dentists and dental assistants had significant effects on pain intensity reduction and the MVIC of the musculature of the trunk and is, therefore, suitable as a behavioural preventive measure against MSD in dental professionals.

Combining Ergonomic Risk Assessment (RULA) with Inertial Motion Capture Technology in Dentistry-Using the Benefits from Two Worlds.

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.

Ergonomic Analysis of Dental Work in Different Oral Quadrants: A Motion Capture Preliminary Study among Endodontists.

BACKGROUND: Dentists, including endodontists, frequently experience musculoskeletal disorders due to unfavourable working postures. Several measures are known to reduce the ergonomic risk; however, there are still gaps in the research, particularly in relation to dental work in the different oral regions (Quadrants 1-4). METHODS: In this study (of a pilot character), a total of 15 dentists (8 male and 7 female) specialising in endodontics were measured while performing root canal treatments on a phantom head. These measurements took place in a laboratory setting using an inertial motion capture system. A slightly modified Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) coding system was employed for the analysis of kinematic data. The significance level was set at p = 0.05. RESULTS: The ergonomic risk for the entire body was higher in the fourth quadrant than in the first quadrant for 80% of the endodontists and higher than in the second quadrant for 87%. For 87% of the endodontists, the ergonomic risk for the right side of the body was significantly higher in the fourth quadrant compared to the first and second quadrant. The right arm was stressed more in the lower jaw than in the upper jaw, and the neck also showed a greater ergonomic risk in the fourth quadrant compared to the first quadrant. CONCLUSION: In summary, both the total RULA score and scores for the right- and lefthand sides of the body ranged between 5 and 6 out of a possible 7 points. Considering this considerable burden, heightened attention, especially to the fourth quadrant with a significantly higher ergonomic risk compared to Quadrants 1 and 2, may be warranted.

Ergonomic Comparison of Four Dental Workplace Concepts Using Inertial Motion Capture for Dentists and Dental Assistants.

When the inventory is arranged in a dental practice, a distinction can be made between four different dental workplace concepts (DWCs). Since the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases in dental professionals is very high, preventive solution need to be investigated. As the conventionally used DWCs have, to date, never been studied in terms of their ergonomics, this study aims to investigate the ergonomic risk when working at the four different DWCs. In total, 75 dentists (37 m/38 f) and 75 dental assistants (16 m/59 f) volunteered to take part in this study. Standardized cooperative working procedures were carried out in a laboratory setting and kinematic data were recorded using an inertial motion capture system. The data were applied to an automated version of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Comparisons between the DWCs and between the dentists and dental assistants were calculated. In all four DWCs, both dentists and dental assistants spent 95-97% of their working time in the worst possible RULA score. In the trunk, DWCs 1 and 2 were slightly favorable for both dentists and dental assistants, while for the neck, DWC 4 showed a lower risk score for dentists. The ergonomic risk was extremely high in all four DWCs, while only slight advantages for distinct body parts were found. The working posture seemed to be determined by the task itself rather than by the different inventory arrangements.

Ergonomic Risk Assessment of Dental Students-RULA Applied to Objective Kinematic Data.

Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is already prevalent in dental students despite their young age and the short duration of dental practice. The current findings state that the causes of MSD are related to posture during dental work. This study aims to investigate the ergonomic risk of dental students. In order to analyze the ergonomic risk of dental students, 3D motion analyses were performed with inertial sensors during the performance of standardized dental activities. For this purpose, 15 dental students and 15 dental assistant trainees (all right-handed) were measured in a team. Data were analyzed using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), which was modified to evaluate objective data. Ergonomic risk was found for the following body parts in descending order: left wrist, right wrist, neck, trunk, left lower arm, right lower arm, right upper arm, left upper arm. All relevant body parts, taken together, exhibited a posture with the highest RULA score that could be achieved (median Final Overall = 7), with body parts in the very highest RULA score of 7 for almost 80% of the treatment time. Dental students work with poor posture over a long period of time, exposing them to high ergonomic risk. Therefore, it seems necessary that more attention should be paid to theoretical and practical ergonomics in dental school.

SOPEZ: study for the optimization of ergonomics in the dental practice - musculoskeletal disorders in dentists and dental assistants: a study protocol.

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.

Prevalence of self-reported musculoskeletal disorders of the hand and associated conducted therapy approaches among dentists and dental assistants in Germany.

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.

Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders among Dentists and Dental Students in Germany.

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.

Prevalence of Muscular Skeletal Disorders among Qualified Dental Assistants.

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.

Attitudes of dental healthcare workers towards the influenza vaccination.

Influenza viruses are highly contagious. Medical personnel are at risk of occupational exposure to influenza. Data on dental healthcare workers (DHCWs) immunization status has not been published. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of DHCWs and dental students at a German dental university hospital. Surveys, completed between October 2010 and March 2011, focused on reasons of DHCWs for accepting or declining the influenza vaccination. Furthermore, we characterized attitudes towards influenza infection due to the emergence of the H1N1/2009. Compliance rates with the influenza vaccination among DHCWs were low (31.6%). The main reason for not getting vaccinated against the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 virus in the 2009/2010 season was the objection to the AS03-adjuvants (48.5%). Of the DHCWs surveyed, 30.6% (74/242) cited that the H1N1/2009 pandemic influenced their attitudes towards vaccination in general. Our findings confirm the importance of a comprehensive approach to the influenza vaccination, ensuring that DHCWs are correctly informed about the vaccine and that it is convenient to receive it. It could be shown that an immunization campaign at the workplace seems to be capable of improving vaccination rates, one-third of the vaccinees have been vaccinated for the first time.