Hand arm vibration syndrome in dentistry: A review

Chowdhry, R. M.; Sethi, Vikas

doi:10.1016/j.cmrp.2017.11.001

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current provision, AFS 2019:3, has been used since 2019, succeeding the provision AFS 2005:6. 8 Both provisions state that employers are obliged to offer their workers a specific medical check‐up aimed to detect vibration induced disorders (MCV) if any of the following conditions apply: (1) The daily action value of 2.5 m/s 2 A(8) for hand‐arm vibrations is exceeded, (2) the worker is exposed in such a way that it could be presumed that the exposure could cause ill health, illness, or injury (for example, dentistry 9 or work with percussive impact tools, such as riveting hammers 10 ) even though the action value is not exceeded, or (3) the exposure has caused vibration injuries, or suspicion of vibration injuries, in another worker with similar exposure. The purpose of the MCVs is to prevent HAVS by finding workers with a high risk for disease as well as workers with disease in early stages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical consequence of using less than four sensory perception examination methods in the Swedish surveillance system for Hand-Arm vibration syndrome

Antonson

Thorsén

Nordander

2022

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The Swedish surveillance system aiming to reveal undetected Hand‐Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) in workers exposed for vibrations is regulated by the provision AFS 2019:3. The goal for the surveillance system is to diagnose HAVS, as well as to find workers at risk for developing HAVS due to other conditions. The national guidelines stipulate examination using at least two out of four hand sensory examination methods (SEM); monofilament (touch), two‐point discrimination (discriminative), tuning fork (vibrotactile), and Rolltemp (thermotactile). The aim of this study was to examine the clinical consequence of using less than four of these SEMs. Methods We collected data on SEMs from the medical records of all individuals that went through the specific surveillance medical check‐up in a large occupational health service for 1 year. We then calculated the number of workers found with HAVS when using one, two, or three SEMs, and compared with the result from using all available SEMs. Results Out of 677 examined individuals, 199 had positive findings in at least one SEM. The detection rate for these findings was on average 47% when using one SEM, 71% using two SEMs, and 88% using three SEMs (out of 100% detection when all four SEMs were used). Conclusions If fewer than four sensory examination methods are used for surveillance of HAVS, many workers with incipient injuries may stay undetected. This may lead to further exposure resulting in aggravation of injury.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%