Abstract
Background
Periodontal scaling might cause musculoskeletal disorders, and scaling instruments might not only have different effectiveness and efficiency but also differ in their ergonomic properties. The present study assessed ergonomic working patterns of experienced (EO) and less experienced operators (LO) when using hand and powered devices for periodontal scaling and root planning.
Methods
In an experimental study using periodontally affected manikins, sonic (AIR), ultrasonic (TIG) and hand instruments (GRA) were used by 11 operators (7 EO/4 LO) during simulated supportive periodontal therapy. Using an electronic motion monitoring system, we objectively assessed the working frequency and positioning of hand, neck and head. Operators’ subjective evaluation of the instruments was recorded using a questionnaire.
Results
Hand instruments were used with the lowest frequency (2.57 ± 1.08 s−1) but greatest wrist deviation (59.57 ± 53.94°). EO used instruments more specifically than LO, and generally worked more ergonomically, with less inclination of head and neck in both the frontal and sagittal planes, especially when using hand instruments. All groups found hand instruments more tiring and difficult to use than powered instruments.
Conclusion
Regardless of operators’ experience, powered instruments were used more ergonomically and were subjectively preferred compared to hand instruments.
Clinical relevance
The use of hand instruments has potential ergonomic disadvantages. However, with increasing experience, operators are able to recognise and mitigate possible risks.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Meyer K, Lie T (1977) Root surface roughness in response to periodontal instrumentation studied by combined use of microroughness measurements and scanning electron microscopy. J Clin Periodontol 4:77–91
Rühling A, Schlemme H, Konig J, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann HC (2002) Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments. Part I: a training program to increase effectivity. J Clin Periodontol 29:622–629
Walmsley AD, Lea SC, Landini G, Moses AJ (2008) Advances in power driven pocket/root instrumentation. J Clin Periodontol 35:22–28. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01258.x
Tunkel J, Heinecke A, Flemmig TF (2002) A systematic review of efficacy of machine-driven and manual subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 29(Suppl 3):72–81, discussion 90-1
Drisko CL, Cochran DL, Blieden T, Bouwsma OJ, Cohen RE, Damoulis P, Fine JB, Greenstein G, Hinrichs J, Somerman MJ, Iacono V, Genco RJ (2000) Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol 71:1792–1801. doi:10.1902/jop.2000.71.11.1792
Sculean A, Bastendorf KD, Becker C, Bush B, Einwag J, Lanoway C, Platzer U, Schmage P, Schoeneich B, Walter C, Wennstrom JL, Flemmig TF (2013) A paradigm shift in mechanical biofilm management? Subgingival air polishing: a new way to improve mechanical biofilm management in the dental practice. Quintessence Int 44:475–477. doi:10.3290/j.qi.a29615
Graetz C, Schwendicke F, Plaumann A, Rauschenbach S, Springer C, Kahl M, Salzer S, Dorfer CE (2015) Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators’ experience and type of instrument. Clin Oral Investig 19:987–995. doi:10.1007/s00784-014-1319-x
Zappa U, Smith B, Simona C, Graf H, Case D, Kim W (1991) Root substance removal by scaling and root planing. J Periodontol 62:750–754. doi:10.1902/jop.1991.62.12.750
Kocher T, Ruhling A, Momsen H, Plagmann HC (1997) Effectiveness of subgingival instrumentation with power-driven instruments in the hands of experienced and inexperienced operators. A study on manikins. J Clin Periodontol 24:498–504
Bramson JB, Smith S, Romagnoli G (1998) Evaluating dental office ergonomic. Risk factors and hazards. J Am Dent Assoc 129:174–183
Morse T, Bruneau H, Dussetschleger J (2010) Musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and shoulder in the dental professions. Work 35:419–429. doi:10.3233/WOR-2010-0979
Smith EM, Sonstegard DA, Anderson WH Jr (1977) Carpal tunnel syndrome: contribution of flexor tendons. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 58:379–385
Werner RA, Hamann C, Franzblau A, Rodgers PA (2002) Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome and upper extremity tendinitis among dental hygienists. J Dent Hyg 76:126–132
Lalumandier JA, McPhee SD (2001) Prevalence and risk factors of hand problems and carpal tunnel syndrome among dental hygienists. J Dent Hyg 75:130–134
Morse TF, Michalak-Turcotte C, Atwood-Sanders M, Warren N, Peterson DR, Bruneau H, Cherniack M (2003) A pilot study of hand and arm musculoskeletal disorders in dental hygiene students. J Dent Hyg 77:173–179
Graetz C, Bielfeldt J, Wolff L, Springer C, Fawzy El-Sayed KM, Salzer S, Badri-Hoher S, Dörfer CE (2013) Toothbrushing education via a smart software visualization system. J Periodontol 84:186–195. doi:10.1902/jop.2012.110675
König J, Ruhling A, Schlemme H, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann HC (2002) Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments in vitro: the role of operator motivation and self-assessment. Eur J Dent Educ 6:169–175
Milerad E, Ekenvall L (1990) Symptoms of the neck and upper extremities in dentists. Scand J Work Environ Health 16:129–134
Osborn JB, Newell KJ, Rudney JD, Stoltenberg JL (1990) Musculoskeletal pain among Minnesota dental hygienists. J Dent Hyg 64:132–138
Rempel D, Lee DL, Dawson K, Loomer P (2012) The effects of periodontal curette handle weight and diameter on arm pain: a four-month randomized controlled trial. J Am Dent Assoc 143:1105–1113
Oberg T, Oberg U (1993) Musculoskeletal complaints in dental hygiene: a survey study from a Swedish county. J Dent Hyg 67:257–261
Crawford L, Gutierrez G, Harber P (2005) Work environment and occupational health of dental hygienists: a qualitative assessment. J Occup Environ Med 47:623–632
Ayers KM, Thomson WM, Newton JT, Morgaine KC, Rich AM (2009) Self-reported occupational health of general dental practitioners. Occup Med (Lond) 59:142–148. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqp004
Blue CM, Lenton P, Lunos S, Poppe K, Osborn J (2013) A pilot study comparing the outcome of scaling/root planing with and without perioscope technology. J Dent Hyg 87:152–157
Dong H, Barr A, Loomer P, Rempel D (2005) The effects of finger rest positions on hand muscle load and pinch force in simulated dental hygiene work. J Dent Educ 69:453–460
Kocher T (1994) Wurzeloberflächenbearbeitung bei der Parodontalbehandlung. Methoden, Hilfsmittel sowie Ergebnisse. In: Ketterl W (ed) Deutscher Zahnärztekalender. Hanser, München
Ritz L, Hefti AF, Rateitschak KH (1991) An in vitro investigation on the loss of root substance in scaling with various instruments. J Clin Periodontol 18:643–647
Schmidlin PR, Beuchat M, Busslinger A, Lehmann B, Lutz F (2001) Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation. J Clin Periodontol 28:1058–1066
McAtamney L, Nigel Corlett E (1993) RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24:91–99
Noh H, Roh H (2013) Approach of industrial physical therapy to assessment of the musculoskeletal system and ergonomic risk factors of the dental hygienist. J Phys Ther Sci 25:821–826. doi:10.1589/jpts.25.821
Muhney KA, Dechow PC (2010) Patients’ perception of pain during ultrasonic debridement: a comparison between piezoelectric and magnetostrictive scalers. J Dent Hyg 84:185–189
Hoffman A, Marshall RI, Bartold PM (2005) Use of the Vector scaling unit in supportive periodontal therapy: a subjective patient evaluation. J Clin Periodontol 32:1089–1093. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00794.x
Graetz C, Plaumann A, Bielfeldt J, Tillner A, Salzer S, Dorfer CE (2015) Efficacy versus health risks: an in vitro evaluation of power-driven scalers. J Indian Soc Periodontol 19:18–24. doi:10.4103/0972-124X.145796
Ryan DL, Darby M, Bauman D, Tolle SL, Naik D (2005) Effects of ultrasonic scaling and hand-activated scaling on tactile sensitivity in dental hygiene students. J Dent Hyg 79:9
Lundstrom R (1985) Effects of local vibration transmitted from ultrasonic devices on vibrotactile perception in the hands of therapists. Ergonomics 28:793–803. doi:10.1080/00140138508963199
Hjortsberg U, Rosen I, Orbaek P, Lundborg G, Balogh I (1989) Finger receptor dysfunction in dental technicians exposed to high-frequency vibration. Scand J Work Environ Health 15:339–344
Ekenvall L, Nilsson BY, Falconer C (1990) Sensory perception in the hands of dentists. Scand J Work Environ Health 16:334–339
Akesson I, Lundborg G, Horstmann V, Skerfving S (1995) Neuropathy in female dental personnel exposed to high frequency vibrations. Occup Environ Med 52:116–123
Trenter SC, Walmsley AD (2003) Ultrasonic dental scaler: associated hazards. J Clin Periodontol 30:95–101
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to their colleges and students A. Langmaak, A Boels, L. Bruchmann, S. Harbeck, M. Kahl, T. Pousset, C. Springer and S. Sälzer, who contributed to this study by treating the manikins as outlined.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest. This study was technically (instruments provided) supported by the Loser Company (Loser & Co, Leverkusen, Germany) and W&H Company (W&H, Bürmoos, Austria).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplement Figure S1
(DOCX 1629 kb)
Supplement Figure S2
(DOCX 1767 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Graetz, C., Plaumann, A., Rauschenbach, S. et al. Removal of simulated biofilm: a preclinical ergonomic comparison of instruments and operators. Clin Oral Invest 20, 1193–1201 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1605-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1605-2