Assessment of the ergonomic risk from saddle and conventional seats in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective This study aimed to verify whether the saddle seat provides lower ergonomic risk than conventional seats in dentistry. Methods This review followed the PRISMA statement and a protocol was created and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017074918). Six electronic databases were searched as primary study sources. The grey literature was included to prevent selection and publication biases. The risk of bias among the studies included was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the effect of seat type on the ergonomic risk score in dentistry. The heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I-2 statistics. Results The search resulted in 3147 records, from which two were considered eligible for this review. Both studies were conducted with a total of 150 second-year dental students who were starting their laboratory activities using phantom heads. Saddle seats were associated with a significantly lower ergonomic risk than conventional seats [right side (mean difference = -3.18; 95% CI = -4.96, -1.40; p < 0.001) and left side (mean difference = -3.12; 95% CI = -4.56, -1.68; p < 0.001)], indicating posture improvement. Conclusion The two eligible studies for this review provide moderate evidence that saddle seats provided lower ergonomic risk than conventional seats in the examined population of dental students.