Musculoskeletal symptoms are a major concern among dental practitioners. Dental students perform the same clinical tasks as dentists in private practice, yet only recently has scientific evidence suggested a relationship between the tasks and musculoskeletal symptoms. This study investigates the clinical tasks that place students at physical risk and the relationship between the tasks and musculoskeletal symptoms. Student perceptions of physical symptoms were established with a questionnaire identifying variables on general health, tasks, physical demands, workload and environment. A total of 61% (358/590) reported that during the past year they experienced musculoskeletal symptoms related to work at dental school (second year (n = 212), third year (n = 201) and fourth year (n = 177)). Of those students, the neck represented 48%, shoulder 31%, back 44% and hands 20% (p < 0.001). Third year students reported the highest occurrence of symptoms in every body area (p < 0.001). Third and fourth year students reported significant relationships between the occurrence of symptoms and equipment utilisation, work efficiency and general health. Further studies are recommended to evaluate types and levels of potential risk factors. A total of 75% of dental practitioners are at risk for developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Results from this study have found that dental students were no exception. Third year dental students reported the highest level of musculoskeletal symptoms with the prevalence of pain in the neck, shoulder and lower back.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Prolonged standing is common in many industrial workplaces. It is also quite common for workers to complain of discomfort in the back and legs as a result of prolonged standing. Mats are often provided for the worker to relieve this fatigue. However, there is no quantitative evidence that these mats relieve leg and back fatigue. Five subjects were asked to stand on a concrete surface and two mat surfaces for prolonged periods of time. Spectral electromyo-graphic (EMG) analyses indicated that mats reduce localized muscle fatigue in the erector spinae muscle only. Furthermore, this fatigue reduction occurred only with the more com-pressible of the two mats tested. These results imply mat localized muscular fatigue in the leg may not be relieved with “anti-fatigue” mats and some of these mats only benefit the back.