SynthesisPloS one2018
Assessment of the ergonomic risk from saddle and conventional seats in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transparency as a Means to Analyse the Impact of Inertial Sensors on Users during the Occupational Ergonomic Assessment: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Feasibility Study for Wearable Sensor-Based Vibrotactile Feedback for Posture and Muscle Activation in a Relevant Dentistry Setting.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Utilizing the Finnish method to assessment the dentist's adaptability to physical, environmental, cognitive, and macro-ergonomic features in dental practice: A health promotion approach.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Transition between preclinical and clinical training: Perception of dental students regarding the adoption of ergonomic principles.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Automatic real-time occupational posture evaluation and select corresponding ergonomic assessments.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 < 0.001) and left side (mean difference = -3.12; 95% CI = -4.56, -1.68; p < 0.001)], indicating posture improvement.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.