4.1 Article

Postural Preference and Musculoskeletal Complaints in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 76, Issue 1, Pages 46-51

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.04.020

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Oral and maxillofacial surgeons traditionally have musculoskeletal pain. The aim of this study was to determine the postural preferences of oral and maxillofacial surgeons and their effect on musculoskeletal pain. Materials and Methods: The authors designed and implemented a cross-sectional study. The association of demographic characteristics with postural preferences and use of loupes was explored. Then, the relation of demographic characteristics, postural preferences, and use of loupes to painful musculoskeletal complaints was analyzed. Contingency analysis was used to compare participants' responses and multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify relevant predictor variables. Results: The sample was composed of 153 oral and maxillofacial surgeons, of which 32% indicated that they had pain attributable to their practice that lasted longer than 2 weeks. Practitioners reported neck and back pain as being most common. Eighty-four percent of practitioners stood for extractions and placement of implants. Those who stood did so for visibility. Practitioners who sat indicated they did so for orthopedic reasons (P < .001). Thirty-one percent of practitioners indicated loupes use. Those who used loupes were more likely to report pain (P = .022). Conclusion: Most respondents stood and did not use loupes. Those who did use loupes were more likely to report pain. Those who stood did so for visibility; those who sat did so for orthopedic reasons. Almost one third of respondents reported pain lasting at least 2 weeks during practice. (C) 2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available