Background: Dentists are at a higher risk of suffering from musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) than the general population. However, the latest study investigating MSD in the dental profession in Germany was published about 20 years ago. Therefore, the aim of this study was to reveal the current prevalence of MSD in dentists and dental students in Germany. Methods: The final study size contained 450 (287 f/163 m) subjects of different areas of specialization. The age of the participants ranged from 23 to 75 years. The questionnaire consisted of a modified version of the Nordic Questionnaire, work-related questions from the latest questionnaire of German dentists, typical medical conditions and self-developed questions. Results: The overall prevalence showed that dentists suffered frequently from MSD (seven days: 65.6%, twelve months: 92%, lifetime: 95.8%). The most affected body regions included the neck (42.7%–70.9%–78.4%), shoulders (29.8%–55.6%–66.2%) and lower back (22.9%–45.8%–58.7%). Overall, female participants stated that they suffered from pain significantly more frequently, especially in the neck, shoulders and upper back. Conclusion: The prevalence of MSD among dentists, especially in the neck, shoulder and back area, was significantly higher than in the general population. In addition, women suffered more frequently from MSD than men in almost all body regions.

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the literature on aggressive and chronic periodontitis and orthodontics to clarify the therapy-relevant aspects of orthodontic treatment with altered biomechanics in periodontally compromised dentition. Materials and methods: Literature searches were conducted in the electronic databases “PubMed” and “DIMDI” using the keywords “aggressive periodontitis AND ortho*,” “aggressive periodontitis AND orthodontics,” “chronic periodontitis AND ortho*,” and “chronic periodontitis AND orthodontics” for the publication period from January 1990 to July 2022. In addition, a manual search was carried out in the selected trade journals “Community Dental Health,” “European Journal of Oral Sciences,” and “Parodontologie.” Human clinical trials were included, whereas animal experimental studies, case reports, and reviews were generally excluded. The appropriate studies were selected, and the relevant data was tabulated according to different parameters, regarding the study design, the study structure, and the conduct of the study. Results: A total of 1067 articles were found in the preliminary electronic search. The manual search and review of all related bibliographies resulted in an additional 1591 hits. After the first screening, 43 articles were classified as potentially relevant and reviewed in their original form. After the suitability test, 5 studies with a total of 366 participants were included in the final evaluation. These included one randomized controlled trial and four low-evidence intervention studies. The studies were conducted in two university hospitals and three private practices. All participants underwent scaling and root plaining and periodontal surgery before the orthodontic treatment started. Mean probing pocket depth reduction before and after the interdisciplinary treatment was analyzed in all the included studies; mean difference in clinical attachment level in four of the studies was also included. All participants were enrolled in a continuous recall system. In all studies, orthodontic therapy in periodontally compromised patients improved function and esthetics, resulting in lower probing depths and clinical attachment gains. Conclusions: Orthodontic treatment can be used for patients with reduced periodontal support to stabilize clinical findings and improve function and esthetics. The prerequisite for this is a profound knowledge of altered biomechanics and an adapted interdisciplinary treatment approach. Due to the large heterogeneity of the included studies and their limited methodological quality, the results obtained in this review must be considered critically. Further randomized controlled long-term studies with comparable study designs are necessary to obtain reliable and reproducible treatment results. Clinical relevance: Patients with periodontal impairment can be successfully treated with orthodontics as part of interdisciplinary therapy. Orthodontic treatment has no negative impact on the periodontium; if minimal, controlled forces are used under non-inflammatory conditions.

Traditional ergonomic risk assessment tools such as the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) are often not sensitive enough to evaluate well-optimized work routines. An implementation of kinematic data captured by inertial sensors is applied to compare two work routines in dentistry. The surgical dental treatment was performed in two different conditions, which were recorded by means of inertial sensors (Xsens MVN Link). For this purpose, 15 (12 males/3 females) oral and maxillofacial surgeons took part in the study. Data were post processed with costume written MATLAB^® routines, including a full implementation of RULA (slightly adjusted to dentistry). For an in-depth comparison, five newly introduced levels of complexity of the RULA analysis were applied, i.e., from lowest complexity to highest: (1) RULA score, (2) relative RULA score distribution, (3) RULA steps score, (4) relative RULA steps score occurrence, and (5) relative angle distribution. With increasing complexity, the number of variables times (the number of resolvable units per variable) increased. In our example, only significant differences between the treatment concepts were observed at levels that are more complex: the relative RULA step score occurrence and the relative angle distribution (level 4 + 5). With the presented approach, an objective and detailed ergonomic analysis is possible. The data-driven approach adds significant additional context to the RULA score evaluation. The presented method captures data, evaluates the full task cycle, and allows different levels of analysis. These points are a clear benefit to a standard, manual assessment of one main body position during a working task.

The objective of this 2-arm parallel trial was to determine the plaque removal efficacy (main outcome) and the motivation assessment (secondary outcome) comparing a manual versus an interactive power toothbrush in orthodontic patients. Sixty adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances in both arches were randomized in a 1:1 ratio in this parallel, randomized, examiner-blind controlled clinical trial. Eligibility criteria included at least 16 natural teeth, 1-6 "focus care areas," plaque score of ≥1.75, no severe caries, gingivitis and periodontitis, no dental prophylaxis, no smoking, no antibiotics, and no chlorhexidine mouth rinse. Subjects were to brush unsupervised with either an interactive power toothbrush (Oral-B Professional Care 6000, D36/EB20) with Bluetooth technology or a regular manual toothbrush (Oral-B Indicator 35 soft). Focus care areas were each brushed for 10 additional seconds. Plaque removal was assessed with the use of the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI) to determine change from baseline at 2 and 6 weeks. Supervised brushing at screening and post-treatment visits recorded actual brushing times. Subject-reported motivational aspects were recorded at screening and week 6. Fifty-nine subjects aged 13-17 years completed the study. The interactive power toothbrush provided significantly (P <0.001) greater plaque reduction versus the manual toothbrush at 2 and 6 weeks according to the whole-mouth TMQHPI. The treatment difference in adjusted mean plaque change from baseline was 0.777 (95% CI 0.614-0.940) at week 2 and 0.834 (0.686-0.981) at week 6. Mean reductions in the number of focus care areas were also significantly greater (P <0.001) in the power brush group at weeks 2 and 6. Brushing times increased significantly at weeks 2 and 6 (P ≤0.013) versus baseline in the interactive power brush group only. Subject-reported motivation was significantly increased in the interactive power brush group at week 6 versus screening (P ≤0.005). An interactive power toothbrush generated increased brushing times and significantly greater plaque removal versus a manual brush.

How a dentist works, such as the patterns of movements performed daily, is also largely affected by the workstation Dental tasks are often executed in awkward body positions, thereby causing a very high degree of strain on the corresponding muscles. The objective of this study is to detect those dental tasks, during which awkward postures occur most frequently. The isolated analysis of static postures will examine the duration for which these postures are maintained during the corresponding dental, respectively non-dental, activities. Methods: 21 (11f/10 m) dentists (age: 40.1 ± 10.4 years) participated in this study. An average dental workday was collected for every subject. To collect kinematic data of all activities, the CUELA system was used. Parallel to the kinematic examination, a detailed computer-based task analysis was conducted. Afterwards, both data sets were synchronized based on the chronological order of the postures assumed in the trunk and the head region. All tasks performed were assigned to the categories “treatment” (I), “office” (II) and “other activities” (III). The angle values of each body region (evaluation parameter) were examined and assessed corresponding to ergonomic standards. Moreover, this study placed a particular focus on static positions, which are held statically for 4 s and longer. For “treatment” (I), the entire head and trunk area is anteriorly tilted while the back is twisted to the right, in (II) and (III) the back is anteriorly tilted and twisted to the right (non-neutral position). Static positions in (I) last for 4–10s, static postures (approx. 60%) can be observed while in (II) and (III) in the back area static positions for more than 30 s are most common. Moreover, in (II) the back is twisted to the right for more than 60 s in 26.8%. Awkward positions are a major part of a dentists’ work. This mainly pertains to static positions of the trunk and head in contrast to “office work.” These insights facilitate the quantitative description of the dentist profession with regard to the related physical load along with the health hazards to the musculoskeletal system. Moreover, the results allow for a selective extraction of the most unfavorable static body positions that dentists assume for each of the activities performed.