Working position influences the biomechanical demands on the lower back during dental hygiene
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it