OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among dentists, explore the risk factors and identify the ergonomic preventive measures for dental professionals.
METHODS: Articles published between 2008-2020 were searched in scientific databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Systematic Review Checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies were found to be suitable in the final review. Relevant data was extracted and summarized from the included studies. The annual prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in any body site ranged between 68% and 100%. The most predominant regions for musculoskeletal disorders among dental professionals were identified to be the lower back (29% to 94.6%), shoulder (25% to 92.7%), and neck (26% to 92%). The most frequently reported risk factors of MSDs were the individual characteristic female gender (57.1%), followed by awkward working postures (50%), long working experience (50%) and being dental specialists (42.9%). Several preventive measures were identified as the most effective ways in preventing MSDs, the use of magnification (40%) and regular physical activity (40%).
CONCLUSIONS: This review reported a high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) among dentists. It critically updates and adds the latest evidence on occupational ergonomics among dentists.
OBJECTIVE: The three main objectives are to analyze published pen-and-paper observational methods, to extract and understand the risk levels of each method and to identify their associated health effects.
METHODOLOGY: The authors searched scientific databases and the Internet for materials from 1970 to 2013 using the following keywords: ergo, posture, method, observational, postural angle, health effects, pain and diseases. Postural assessments of upper arms, lower arms, wrists, neck, back and legs in six pen-and-paper-based observational methods are highlighted, extracted in groups and linked with associated adverse health effects.
RESULTS: The literature reviewed showed strengths and limitations of published pen-and-paper-based observational methods in determining the work activities, risk levels and related postural angles to adverse health effects. This provided a better understanding of unsafe work postures and how to improve these postures.
CONCLUSION: Many pen-and-paper-based observational methods have been developed. However, there are still many limitations of these methods. There is, therefore, a need to develop a new pen-and-paper-based observational method for assessing postural problems.