Objective Work‐related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are common in the dental hygiene profession. Awkward postures contribute to MSDs and magnification loupes have been suggested to reduce this risk factor and minimize MSDs. Methods After IRB approval, 24 hygienists were enrolled in the study: twelve hygienists wearing loupes with a standard manufacturer determined declination angle (control) and 12 hygienists wearing loupes with a custom measured declination angle (experimental). To measure changes in neck and trunk flexion, accelerometers were placed on the occipital region of head, cervical vertebrae C5, and thoracic vertebrae T5 and baseline posture was recorded. Typodonts with artificial calculus simulated the oral environment. Participants were randomly assigned to wear their designated loupes during the first or second trial of the experiment and scaled in each quadrant (UR, LR, UL, LL) of the mouth for two minutes. Participants completed the scaling task twice: in the loupes and no loupes condition in a counterbalanced order. Three‐way mixed design ANOVA was used to determine posture differences in neck and trunk posture. Results Those wearing custom loupes (M = 16.52, SD = 6.40) had significantly less trunk flexion while scaling compared to hygienists wearing standard loupes (M = 22.27, SD = 6.40), F(1, 22) = 7.14, P = .01. Neck flexion was not significantly affected while scaling between loupes vs no loupes or loupes type condition, (P’s > .05). Conclusion Posture was partially impacted by loupes type. Custom loupes resulted in less trunk flexion. Neck flexion was not affected by either loupes type.

The use of crowns with rod attachments on tilted teeth seems to be an appropriate treatment approach in order to simplify removable dental prosthesis design.

No abstract

Objective The objective of this review was to examine the impact of instrument designs on pinch force generation during scaling by dental professionals. Methods Three databases were utilized from September 2019 to November 2021 in addition to hand‐searching specific journals and reference lists. Research articles that examined pinch force generation in dental professionals during scaling with manual instruments only were included. Bias was assessed in the individual articles. Results Six research articles were included with sample populations that varied from 12 to 24 participants. Four articles evaluated instrument designs in relation to pinch force generation during scaling by dental professionals. Two articles evaluated the clinicians' experience levels and the impact on pinch force generation. Results of three articles revealed instruments with large diameters and low weights produced the least amount of pinch force (p < 0.05). Additionally, two articles found instruments with a round, tapered shape produced less pinch force and instrument handles made of silicone produced higher pinch strength post‐scaling (p < 0.05). One study indicated instrument designs associated with modified scaling techniques may reduce thumb and index finger pinch force (p < 0.05). Conclusion The findings from this review indicate weak evidence for instrument choices to reduce pinch force during scaling. Dental professionals should consider lightweight and large diameter instruments for manual scaling. Clinicians may also want to consider round, tapered handles and instrument designs with modified scaling techniques. This systematic review further identified the need for clinical research studies with rigorous research designs that examine the ergonomic impacts of instrument designs.

No abstract