Assessment of core endurance and shoulder proprioception in dental students with and without forward head posture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background One of the most prevalent musculoskeletal issues in dentistry is forward head posture (FHP). Proprioception and core endurance are crucial for maintaining proper posture. Objective The aim of this study was to compare dental students with and without FHP in terms of their core endurance and shoulder proprioception. Methods Using kinovea software, a cross-sectional study was conducted on 30 dental students who had FHP with a craniovertebral angle less than 49 degrees. The control group consisted of 30 additional dental students without FHP. Trunk anterior flexor, posterior extensor, right and left flexors were tested using the McGill method to determine core endurance. The isokinetic Biodex system was used to measure shoulder proprioception. Results Independent t-test results revealed that core endurance was significantly lower in the group with forward head posture compared to the control group (p 0.05), while shoulder proprioception did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion In comparison to dental students without forward head posture, male dental students with FHP have normal shoulder joint proprioception and impaired core endurance holding time. This could be a risk factor for a variety of musculoskeletal issues in dentists.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".