Comparative analysis of preclinical dental students' working postures using dental loupes and dental operating microscope.
loupes
magnification
microscope
posture
restorative dentistry
student
Journal
European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe
ISSN: 1600-0579
Titre abrégé: Eur J Dent Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9712132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
revised:
19
09
2020
received:
30
04
2020
accepted:
12
10
2020
pubmed:
13
11
2020
medline:
14
7
2021
entrez:
12
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dentists are susceptible to musculoskeletal disorders due to prolonged static postures during dental treatments. Using a magnification tool like dental operating microscope (DOM) or the dental loupes may correct the operator's posture. Up until now, few studies have focused on preclinical dental students' posture when working with the DOM, while most of them have focused on the loupes. The aim of this study was to comparatively analyse the working posture of preclinical students during a dental restoration procedure, working with two different magnification methods. This study used a randomised cross-over design in which seventeen third year students were randomly divided into three groups. The exclusion criteria were previous contact with magnification systems and previous clinical working experience. Each student prepared 3 Black class 1 cavities on artificial lower molars: first with no magnification, following dental loupes and DOM. They were video-recorded throughout the preparation. Trunk, neck and upper-arm position were evaluated using the Posture Assessment Instrument. Students completed a questionnaire on their subjective perception of the two magnification systems. The statistical analysis showed significant improvement of the working posture using magnification systems compared to direct vision. The biggest improvement was obtained through the use of DOM, followed by the dental loupes. Students perceived dental loupes as being the most comfortable and easy to adapt to. They reported being more focused when using DOM. Both magnification systems had a positive impact on the working posture, DOM having the best results. Loupes showed better adaptability while DOM showed better concentration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dentists are susceptible to musculoskeletal disorders due to prolonged static postures during dental treatments. Using a magnification tool like dental operating microscope (DOM) or the dental loupes may correct the operator's posture. Up until now, few studies have focused on preclinical dental students' posture when working with the DOM, while most of them have focused on the loupes. The aim of this study was to comparatively analyse the working posture of preclinical students during a dental restoration procedure, working with two different magnification methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
This study used a randomised cross-over design in which seventeen third year students were randomly divided into three groups. The exclusion criteria were previous contact with magnification systems and previous clinical working experience. Each student prepared 3 Black class 1 cavities on artificial lower molars: first with no magnification, following dental loupes and DOM. They were video-recorded throughout the preparation. Trunk, neck and upper-arm position were evaluated using the Posture Assessment Instrument. Students completed a questionnaire on their subjective perception of the two magnification systems.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The statistical analysis showed significant improvement of the working posture using magnification systems compared to direct vision. The biggest improvement was obtained through the use of DOM, followed by the dental loupes. Students perceived dental loupes as being the most comfortable and easy to adapt to. They reported being more focused when using DOM.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Both magnification systems had a positive impact on the working posture, DOM having the best results. Loupes showed better adaptability while DOM showed better concentration.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Pagination
516-523Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Kakosy T, Németh L. Musculoskeletal disorders caused by hand-arm vibration. Global Occup Health Network. 2003;4:3-6.
Carvalho MV, Cavalcanti FI, Miranda HF, Soriano EP. Partial rupture of supraspinous tendon in a dentist: a case report. FIEP Bull. 2006;76:131.
Doorn JW. Low back disability among self-employed dentists, veterinarians, physicians and physical therapists in The Netherlands. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;263:1-64.
Suedbeck JR, Tolle SL, McCombs G, Walker ML, Russell DM. Effects of instrument handle design on dental hygienists' forearm muscle activity during scaling. J Dent Hyg. 2017;91(3):47-54.
Gaowgzeh RA, Chevidikunnan MF, Al Saif A, El-Gendy S, Karrouf G, Senany S. Prevalence of and risk factors for low back pain among dentists. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(9):2803-2806.
Bernacki EJ, Guidera JA, Schaefer JA, et al. An ergonomics program designed to reduce the incidence of upper extremity work related musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Environ Med. 1999;41:1032-1041.
Shaik AR, Rao SBH, Husain A, D'sa J. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among dental surgeons: a pilot study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2(4):308-312.
Movahhed T, Dehghani M, Argham S, Arghami A. Do dental students have a neutral working posture? J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2016;29(4):859-864.
Yamalik N. Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and dental practice Part 2. Risk factors for dentistry, magnitude of the problem, prevention, and dental ergonomics. Int Dent J. 2007;57(1):45-54.
Morse T, Bruneau H, Dussetschleger J. Musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and shoulder in the dental professions. Work. 2010;35:419-429. 411p.
Crawford L, Gutierrez G, Harber P. Work environment and occupational health of dental hygienists: a qualitative assessment. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47:623-632.
Brown J, Burke FJ, Macdonald EB, et al. Dental practitioners and ill health retirement: causes, outcomes and re-employment. Br Dent J. 2010;209:E7.
Plessas A, Bernardes DM. The role of ergonomic saddle seats and magnification loupes in the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders. A systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg. 2018;16(4):430-440.
Valachi B, Valachi K. Mechanisms leading to musculoskeletal disorders in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134:1344-1350.
Pîrvu C, Pătraşcu I, Pîrvu D, Ionescu C. The dentist's operating posture - ergonomic aspects. J Med Life. 2014;7(2):177-182.
Lietz J, Ulusoy N, Nienhaus A. Prevention of musculoskeletal diseases and pain among dental professionals through ergonomic interventions: a systematic literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3482.
Khan SA, Yee CK. Effect of working characteristics and taught ergonomics on the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders amongst dental students. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:118.
Valachi B, Valachi K. Preventing musculoskeletal disorders in clinical dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134(12):1604-1612.
Hayes MJ, Osmotherly PG, Taylor JA, Smith DR, Ho A. The effect of loupes on neck pain and disability among dental hygienists. Work. 2016;53(4):755-762.
Ng A, Hayes MJ, Polster A. Musculoskeletal disorders and working posture among dental and oral health students. Healthcare (Basel). 2016;4(1):13.
Carpentier M, Aubeux D, Armengol V, Pérez F, Prud'homme T, Gaudin A. The effect of magnification loupes on spontaneous posture change of dental students during preclinical restorative training. J Dent Educ. 2019;83(4):407-415.
Bowers DJ, Glickman GN, Solomon ES, He J. Magnification's effect on endodontic fine motor skills. J Endod. 2010;36(7):1135-1138.
Maggio MP, Villegas H, Blatz MB. The effect of magnification loupes on the performance of preclinical dental students. Quintessence Int. 2011;42(1):45-55.
James T, Gilmour AS. Magnifying loupes in modern dental practice: an update. Dent Update. 2010;37(9):633-636.
Maillet JP, Millar AM, Burke JM, Maillet MA, Maillet WA, Neish NR. Effect of magnification loupes on dental hygiene student posture. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(1):33-44.
Forgie AH. Magnification: what is available, and will it aid your clinical practice? Dent Update. 2001;28(3):125-130.
Shanelec DA. Optical principles of loupes. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1992;20(11):25-32.
Juggins KJ. Current products and practice: the bigger the better: can magnification aid orthodontic clinical practice? J. Orthod. 2006;33(1):62-66.
Congdon LM, Tolle SL, Darby M. Magnification loupes in U.S. entry-level dental hygiene programs-occupational health and safety. J Dent Hyg. 2012;86(3):215-222.
Van As GA. Magnification alternatives: seeing is believing, part 2. Dent Today. 2014;32(8):80-84.
Meraner M, Nase JB. Magnification in dental practice and education: experience and attitudes of a dental school faculty. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(6):698-706.
Zaugg B, Stassinakis A, Hotz P. Influence of magnification tools on the recognition of simulated preparation and filling errors. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2004;114(9):890-896.