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: To assess the influence of gender, academic level, and the presence of painful symptoms on the perception of risk factors at work contributing to musculoskeletal symptoms among dental students of Melaka, Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 183 clinical year dental students based on a convenience sample. The data were collected using the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire and Job Factor Questionnaire for assessment of musculoskeletal symptoms and risk factors at work respectively. Study data were evaluated using percentage, median, Cochran's Q test, Bonferroni correction, multiple linear regression analysis and Mann-Whitney U Test. The analysis was interpreted considering a 95 % confidence interval and significant level at P
Results: The findings showed piano players have a higher NDI, lower CVA, and RSP when compared with the non-piano players at a statistically significant level of p-value <0.05.
Objective: Playing-related musculoskeletal disorders (PRMSD) are a common problem for the pianist. The poor upper body ergonomics influences the natural positioning of the neck and shoulders, which involves forward head posture (FHP) and rounded shoulder posture (RSP). This misaligned position could produce a sensation of pain over the upper body, which affects the piano player and computer users with similar ergonomic posture. Recently, photogrammetry methods are commonly applied in a clinical setting to assess posture. The goal of this research is to compare the upper body playing-related muscu-loskeletal disorders between the piano and the non-piano players by applying photogrammetry.
Materials and Methods: This causal-comparative study includes 70 participants with 35 piano and 35 non-piano players. The participant's FHP was assessed using a digitized photo to record the Craniovertebral angle (CVA) with the support of Kinovea software. Besides, digital Vernier Calliper used to assess the scapular index on the RSP and Neck disability indices (NDI) used to measure neck pain and functional disability of the participants.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
ABBREVIATIONS: Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA); Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
METHODS: Participants (N=142) in this randomized controlled trial were office workers aged 20-50 years old with neck, shoulders, and lower back pain. They were randomly assigned to either the ergonomic modification group, the exercise group, the combined exercise and ergonomic modification group, or the control group (no-treatment). The exercise training group performed a series of stretching exercises, while the ergonomic group received some modification in the working place. Outcome measures were assessed by the Cornell Musculoskeletal Disorders Questionnaire at baseline, after 2, 4, and 6 months of intervention.
RESULTS: There was significant differences in pain scores for neck (MD -10.55; 95%CI -14.36 to -6.74), right shoulder (MD -12.17; 95%CI -16.87 to -7.47), left shoulder (MD -11.1; 95%CI -15.1 to -7.09) and lower back (MD -7.8; 95%CI -11.08 to -4.53) between the exercise and control groups. Also, significant differences were seen in pain scores for neck (MD -9.99; 95%CI -13.63 to -6.36), right shoulder (MD -11.12; 95%CI -15.59 to -6.65), left shoulder (MD -10.67; 95%CI -14.49 to -6.85) and lower back (MD -6.87; 95%CI -10 to -3.74) between the combined exercise and ergonomic modification and control groups. The significant improvement from month 4 to 6, was only seen in exercise group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: To have a long term effective on MSDs, physical therapists and occupational therapists should use stretching exercises in their treatment programs rather than solely rely on ergonomic modification.
CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT02874950 - https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02874950.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the relationship between specific physical and psychosocial factors and/or ergonomic conditions on MSD symptoms among dentists in Malaysia.
METHODS: A group of 85 dentists was asked to complete a questionnaire to determine whether their complaints were related to physical and psychosocial factors and/or ergonomic conditions in their practices.
RESULTS: Among the nine reviewed body areas, the shoulders were most often affected by symptoms of MSDs (92.7%). Moreover, MSDs of the neck and upper back were most likely to prevent these practitioners from engaging in normal activities (32.9%). In general, no significant differences were found in the prevalence of MSD symptoms in relation to gender, age, body mass index, years in practice, number of patients, and frequency of breaks.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results were consistent with those reported in other studies that focused on MSD problems among dentists in other countries. To reduce the prevalence of MSDs, more attention should be paid to instituting ergonomically sensible approaches in the dental practice setting.
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.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this initial study is to analyze the validity and dependability of the Malay translation of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire.
METHODS: The questionnaire was self-administered two times, with an interval of two weeks in order to evaluate the accuracy of the original findings with a retest. The study involved 115 participants.
RESULTS: The range of Cronbach Alpha coefficient showed a considerable consistency of the items for each sub-scale (Cronbach's a > 0.95). The range of Kappa coefficients was between (ICC = 0.690-0.949, p