Working position influences the biomechanical demands on the lower back during dental hygiene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation monitored the biomechanical demands on the lower back during simulated dental hygiene work. A total of 19 female, registered dental hygienists performed 30 continuous minutes of manual scaling (plaque removal) of a manikin's teeth while seated. We monitored the working location and orientation of the dental hygienists, with respect to the manikin, along with their spine kinematics, spine extensor muscle activities and seat pressure, throughout the 30 min. A clock representation was used to express the working location. The location significantly influenced the dental hygienists' pelvic orientation with respect to the manikin, spine posture, erector muscle activity and pressure distribution. Findings from this study suggest that the prevalence of lower back pain amongst dental hygienists may be directly related to low-level tonic activity of the spine's extensor musculature, and the combined flexed and axially rotated spine postures. Practitioner Summary: Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent in dental hygienists, yet occupational demand on the low back has not been investigated. Posture, muscle activity and seat pressure were monitored. Combined spine rotation and flexion, and tonic activity of the extensor musculature may be related to LBP in dental hygienists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".