F Huppert1, W Betz2, C Maurer-Grubinger1, F Holzgreve3, L Fraeulin1, N Filmann4, D A Groneberg1, D Ohlendorf1. 1. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Building 9A, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 2. Institute of Dentistry, Goethe-University, Frankfurt/Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Building 9A, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. holzgreve@med.uni-frankfurt.de. 4. Institute of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modeling, Goethe-University, Frankfurt/Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Building 11, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Abstract
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.
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.