Graduation Date

Spring 5-6-2023

Document Type


Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

First Advisor

Meenakshi (Minnie) Vishwanath


Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine operator’s best position when doing interproximal reduction. Also, to determine if these positions are ergonomically recommended.

Materials and methods: 54 sets of upper and lower models were scanned and 3D-printed. Air-rotor stripping was performed at different provider positions. Vertical and horizontal deviations were measured, and errors were recorded.

Results: In LA, there was no statistically significant difference between vertical deviations in P7 and 11, however, they were both superior to P9. In LL, P11 leads to significantly lower vertical deviation than P7 and 9. In LR, P9 and 11 were superior to P7. In UA and UL, no significant difference between the positions was found. In UR, P7 was dominated by 9, while there was no significant difference between 9 and 11. In horizontal dimension, there was no difference between positions, except, P11 dominated both 7 and 9 in UL.

Conclusion: Our data suggest IPR in P7 or 11 in LA, P11 in LL, and P9 or 11 in LR, UA and UR. In UL, only P11 is suggested. P7 is only suggested in LA, however, P11 is also acceptable. P11 can be chosen in all areas of mouth. From ergonomic aspect, P11 is recommended for LL. P9 or 11 are recommended in LR. In LA, only P11 is recommended. P11 is the only ergonomically recommended position in UL, and both P9 and 11 are recommended in UR. P7 is recommended for UA, LR, LL, and LA. P11 is recommended for all sextants.


2023 Copyright, the authors

Available for download on Saturday, April 26, 2025