Liu X Q, Liao Y, Yang Y, Zhou J F, Tan J G
Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Department of General Dentistry Ⅱ, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020 Oct 18;52(5):948-951. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.05.026.
To assess the effects of loupes and microscope on the posture of prosthodontists when preparing the laminate veneer, and to assess the clinical value of loupes and microscope from the ergonomic aspects.
Twenty young prosthodontists from Department of Prosthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology were recruited into this study, which was a prospective, single blind, self-control trials. The research hypothesis was concealed and the participants were deceived about the precise purpose of the study to counterbalance the lack of direct blinding. The prosthodontists prepared laminate veneers of open window type in the artificial dental model, under routine visual field (control group), 2.5× headwear loupes (loupes group), and 8× operating microscope (microscopic group) by turning. The participants were photographed from profile view and front view. Thereafter, the subjective assessment was performed by themselves using the visual analogue score (VAS). The expert assessment was performed by two professors using modified-dental operator posture assessment instrument on the basis of photographs of the profile view and front view.
The subjective assessment scores for the control group, loupes group and microscopic group were 4.55±1.96, 7.90±1.12, and 9.00±0.92, respectively. There was significant difference between the three groups' subjective scores ( < 0.05). The expert assessment scores for the control group, loupes group and microscopic group were 16.38±1.52, 15.15±1.30, and 13.60±0.88, respectively. There was significant difference between the three groups' expert assessment scores ( < 0.05). Specifically, the three groups' expert assessment scores were significantly different ( < 0.05) in trunk position (front to back) (1.33±0.41, 1.03±0.11, 1.00±0.00), head and neck position (front to back) (2.75±0.38, 2.13±0.36, 1.23±0.38), elbows level (1.38±0.43, 1.40±0.45, 1.13±0.22), and shoulders level (1.43±0.41, 1.23±0.34, 1.13±0.28). Thereinto, the microscopic group was better than loupes group in head and neck position (front to back) and elbows level ( < 0.05).
Loupes and microscope improve the posture of the prosthodontist when preparing the laminate veneer, in which the microscope is better than loupes. Therefore, the magnification devices have clinical value from the ergonomic aspects.
评估头戴放大镜和显微镜对口腔修复医生在制备瓷贴面时姿势的影响，并从人体工程学角度评估头戴放大镜和显微镜的临床价值。
招募了北京大学口腔医学院口腔修复科的20名年轻口腔修复医生参与本研究，这是一项前瞻性、单盲、自身对照试验。研究假设被隐藏，参与者被隐瞒了研究的确切目的，以平衡缺乏直接盲法的情况。口腔修复医生在人工牙模型上制备开窗型瓷贴面，分别在常规视野（对照组）、2.5倍头戴放大镜（放大镜组）和8倍手术显微镜（显微镜组）下进行操作。从侧面和正面拍摄参与者的照片。之后，参与者使用视觉模拟评分法（VAS）进行主观评估。两位教授根据侧面和正面照片，使用改良的牙科操作姿势评估工具进行专家评估。
对照组、放大镜组和显微镜组的主观评估得分分别为4.55±1.96、7.90±1.12和9.00±0.92。三组主观得分之间存在显著差异（P<0.05）。对照组、放大镜组和显微镜组的专家评估得分分别为16.38±1.52、15.15±1.30和13.60±0.88。三组专家评估得分之间存在显著差异（P<0.05）。具体而言，三组专家评估得分在躯干位置（前后）（1.33±0.41、1.03±0.11、1.00±0.00）、头颈部位置（前后）（2.75±0.38、2.13±0.36、1.23±0.38）、肘部水平（1.38±0.43、1.40±0.45、1.13±0.22）和肩部水平（1.43±0.41、1.23±0.34、1.13±0.28）方面存在显著差异（P<0.05）。其中，显微镜组在头颈部位置（前后）和肘部水平方面优于放大镜组（P<0.05）。
头戴放大镜和显微镜可改善口腔修复医生在制备瓷贴面时的姿势，其中显微镜优于头戴放大镜。因此，放大设备从人体工程学角度具有临床价值。
