Articles Vol. 67 No. CĐ5-NCKH 04/05/2026

THE EFFECT OF DENTAL OPERATING MICROSCOPE ON WORKING POSTURE IN ENDODONTIC PRACTICE

Nguyen Thu Tra1,2, Tran Thi Bich Van1,2
1 Faculty of Dentistry – Ho Chi Minh City University of Medicine and Pharmacy
2 Khoa Răng Hàm Mặt – Đại học Y Dược Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD5.5017
14 Views
6 Downloads
Keywords
dental operating microscope; ergonomics; RULA; musculoskeletal disorder.
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of two visual conditions (unaided vision and dental operating microscope - DOM) on the working posture of dentists and dental students, assessed through RULA scores, neck flexion angle, and trunk inclination angle.

Methods: An experimental simulation study using a within-subject crossover design was conducted on 50 participants (25 postgraduate dentists and 25 students). Each participant performed a simulated task involving penetration of 28 printed targets under two visual conditions. Working posture was assessed using RULA scores, neck flexion angle, and trunk inclination angle obtained from video analysis. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test and the Mann–Whitney U test at a significance level of p < 0.05.

Results: Among dentists, neck flexion decreased from 48.2° to 8.8°, trunk inclination from 10.8° to 1.4°, and RULA scores from 6.44 to 3.40 when using the microscope. Among students, neck flexion decreased from 47.4° to 9.6°, trunk inclination from 13.3° to 1.7°, and RULA scores from 6.56 to 3.53 under the same condition.

Conclusion: The DOM significantly improved working posture compared with unaided vision by reducing neck flexion, decreasing trunk inclination, and enhancing RULA scores. The magnification device helped standardize posture across experience levels and may contribute to preventing musculoskeletal disorders in clinical dental practice.

References
[1]
Wajngarten D, Pazos JM, Garcia PPNS. Ergonomic working posture in simulated dental clinical conditions: effect of magnification on the operator’s experience. PeerJ. 2021; 9: e11168. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.11168 Google Scholar
[2]
Pazos JM, Regalo SCH, de Vasconcelos P, Campos JADB, Garcia PPNS. Effect of magnification factor by Galilean loupes on working posture of dental students in simulated clinical procedures: associations between direct and observational measurements. PeerJ. 2022; 10: e13021. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13021 Google Scholar
[3]
Katayama T, Uraba S, Suzuki N, et al. Assessment of dental operating microscope with three-dimensional imaging for endodontic procedures. The Showa University Journal of Medical Sciences. 2024; 36(2): 69–76. DOI: 10.15369/sujms.36.69 Google Scholar
[4]
Feige S, Holzgreve F, Fraeulin L, Maurer-Grubinger C, Betz W, Erbe C, Ohlendorf D. Ergonomic analysis of dental work in different oral quadrants: a motion capture preliminary study among endodontists. Bioengineering. 2024; 11(4): 400. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11040400 Google Scholar
[5]
Maurer-Grubinger C, Holzgreve F, Fraeulin L, Betz W, Erbe C, Brueggmann D, Ohlendorf D. Combining ergonomic risk assessment (RULA) with inertial motion capture technology in dentistry—Using the benefits from two worlds. Sensors. 2021; 21(12): 4077. DOI: 10.3390/s21124077 Google Scholar
[6]
Holzgreve F, Fraeulin L, Betz W, Erbe C, Wanke EM, Brüggmann D, Ohlendorf D. A RULA-based comparison of the ergonomic risk of typical working procedures for dentists and dental assistants of general dentistry, endodontology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, and orthodontics. Sensors. 2022; 22(3): 805. DOI: 10.3390/s22030805 Google Scholar
[7]
Pispero A, Marcon M, Ghezzi C, Massironi D, Varoni EM, Tubaro S, Lodi G. Posture assessment in dentistry for different visual aids using 2D markers. Sensors. 2021; 21(22): 7717. DOI: 10.3390/s21227717 Google Scholar