Assessment of the ergonomic risk from saddle and conventional seats in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveThis study aimed to verify whether the saddle seat provides lower ergonomic risk than conventional seats in dentistry.MethodsThis review followed the PRISMA statement and a protocol was created and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017074918). Six electronic databases were searched as primary study sources. The "grey literature" was included to prevent selection and publication biases. The risk of bias among the studies included was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the effect of seat type on the ergonomic risk score in dentistry. The heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I2 statistics.ResultsThe search resulted in 3147 records, from which two were considered eligible for this review. Both studies were conducted with a total of 150 second-year dental students who were starting their laboratory activities using phantom heads. Saddle seats were associated with a significantly lower ergonomic risk than conventional seats [right side (mean difference = -3.18; 95% CI = -4.96, -1.40; p ConclusionThe two eligible studies for this review provide moderate evidence that saddle seats provided lower ergonomic risk than conventional seats in the examined population of dental students.研究目的 本研究旨在验证牙科诊疗场景中，马鞍座椅是否较传统座椅具有更低的人体工学风险。 研究方法 本综述遵循PRISMA声明制定研究方案，并在PROSPERO（国际前瞻性系统综述注册平台）完成注册，注册号为CRD42017074918。以6个电子数据库作为主要研究来源开展文献检索，同时纳入灰色文献以规避选择偏倚与发表偏倚。采用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所系统综述关键评价工具对纳入研究的偏倚风险进行评估。通过元分析估算座椅类型对牙科人体工学风险评分的影响效应，并采用I²统计量评估研究间异质性。 研究结果 本次检索共获取3147条文献记录，最终有2项研究符合本综述的纳入标准。两项研究共纳入150名二年级牙科学生，受试对象均为初次使用模拟人头开展实训实验的在校学生。结果显示，马鞍座椅对应的人体工学风险显著低于传统座椅[右侧（均数差=-3.18；95%置信区间=-4.96，-1.40；p 研究结论 本综述纳入的两项研究提供了中等强度证据，表明在本次研究覆盖的牙科学生群体中，马鞍座椅的人体工学风险显著低于传统座椅。