BRIDGING THE GAP
How a New Attachable Grip Can Tackle Representation Disparities in the Field of Dentistry
My Role: Project Lead
Tools: Solidworks; Rapid Prototyping; Competitive Analysis; Patent Research; Literature Reviews; Project Management
Context: Ongoing Project in the IDEA Laboratory at Tufts University
Project Scope:
Dental professionals experience significant finger and joint strain from prolonged instrument use, with excessive pinch force disproportionately affecting women and practitioners with smaller hands. Our team partnered with Tufts Dental School to explore how an ergonomic intervention could reduce these demands without disrupting established clinical workflows.
Project Scope:
Dental professionals experience significant finger and joint strain from prolonged instrument use, with excessive pinch force disproportionately affecting women and practitioners with smaller hands. Our team partnered with Tufts Dental School to explore how an ergonomic intervention could reduce these demands without disrupting established clinical workflows.
Key Decisions:
1) A focus on detachable grips instead of redesigning the entire tool to increase scalability, accessibility, and affordability while lowering overall production costs.
2) Pivoting away from the classic bulbous shape to exploring effective textures for grip and smaller curves that support fingers. Our research found that the right texture can prevent fatigue by affording a firmer grip on the tool, thereby alleviating pressure on the fingers.
3) Printing mid-fidelity prototypes with PLA instead of TPU to prioritize the textures over the feeling of the grip. This shifted the focus from overall feel to shape and comfort.
4) Consulting with Dr. Peter Arsenault of Tufts Dental School about our mid-fidelity prototypes before diving into user testing. This revealed the desire for dentists to sterilize the grip while it is still on the tool, calling for a slimmer design.
5) Designing with the constraints of a dental cassette to accomodate any sterilization method (i.e. tools placed in the cassette or in a bag before undergoing heat or chemical treatment).
Our Process…
Early-Stage Sketches of Explorer Redesigns
Early-Stage Sketches of Explorer Redesigns
Low-fidelity prototype of adjustable handles to accomodate a variety of hand sizes.
Literature Reviews & Competitive Analysis
This project started one year before I joined the lab. They had not yet pinpointed what tool they wanted to redesign. In order to familiarize myself with the team’s mission and the problems that dentists were facing, the new team members and I conducted literature reviews and and competitive analysis on potential products. After reviewing articles and the team’s previous interviews, we all created presentations with prospective innovations and solutions to chronic pain. I researched tinnitus, and here is the presentation my subgroup made.
After our subgroups presented, we discussed the feasibility of these solutions, as well as taking into account the competitive analysis that we conducted. We decided that it would make the most sense for us to redesign a handpiece, like the explorer tool. We each conducted a competitive analysis for the explorer tool in particular and created some sketches of ergonomic hand pieces to brainstorm before we went on to building low-fidelity prototype.
Low-Fidelity Prototypes
As I had more time to think, my low-fidelity prototypes went beyond the idea of the sketches. My prototypes include adjustable handle size, removable grips and end-pieces, as well as dynamic silicon handles and a built-in grip. We also conducted user interviews, where I got to speak with dentists and dental assistants about the pain that they experience while using the explorer tool. I incorporated their feedback into my low-fidelity prototypes.
Rather than redesigning the explorer itself, we pivoted toward an attachable grip that could improve ergonomics while preserving the instrument clinicians were already trained and comfortable using. An attachment also offered a lower-cost, more scalable solution that could accommodate existing instruments.
Design decision: Improve the interaction without replacing the familiar tool.
Assembly of Low-Fidelity Prototype with Attachable Grips
Mid-Fidelity Prototypes
We divided into three design subteams to explore distinct approaches to grip geometry: angular, bulbous, and finger-grooved forms. Across approximately 12 team prototypes, we investigated how shape, diameter, texture, and finger positioning could reduce slippage and accommodate different grip styles without obstructing clinicians' view of the mouth.
My subteam developed four SolidWorks iterations, progressively shifting from angular forms toward texture and finger support. Later iterations incorporated finger grooves and varied textures while maintaining 360° rotation, dual-ended use, and multiple grip positions.
Each iteration balanced support with freedom of movement. We adjusted groove depth, geometry, texture, and diameter to prevent finger slippage without restricting grip position or visibility.
Iteration 3: Introduced finger grooves to support pinch, tripod, and digital pronate grips while maintaining rotation and dual-ended use.
Iteration 4: Refined groove dimensions and tested ribbed and honeycomb textures to improve finger support without restricting movement.
Presenting our Research at the NEC HFES 2025 Student Conference
When Testing Changed Our Direction
After our initial prototype cycle, we brought our concepts to a Tufts Dental expert for review. He evaluated the designs for comfort, grip, geometry, and compatibility with standard sterilization cassettes.
The feedback challenged our initial direction. Rather than continuing to refine concepts that weren't meeting clinical needs, we returned to patent and competitive research and reconsidered our approach before beginning another round of iteration.
One critical constraint was diameter: increasing the grip size could improve comfort, but making it too large prevented the instrument from fitting within the sterilization cassette used in clinical workflows. This required us to balance ergonomic benefit with an existing operational constraint.
Second Iteration / Usability Testing
Following expert review, we developed a new round of concepts and conducted informal usability testing with participants across a range of hand sizes. Because hand size was central to the original ergonomic problem, this allowed us to evaluate how the designs accommodated different users before continuing development.
We evaluated differences in grip, comfort, finger positioning, slippage, and overall form, using observations and participant feedback to determine which design direction warranted further development.
Converging on a Design
Through expert review and usability testing, the team converged on one design direction for continued development. The selected concept originated from my subteam and incorporated the ergonomic and clinical constraints identified throughout our research and testing.
My involvement concluded at this stage, with the selected concept positioned for further iteration rather than as a finalized product.
Low-fidelity prototype of adjustable handles to accomodate a variety of hand sizes.
Early stage prototypes and what/why was adjusted between each iteration
Early stage prototypes and what/why was adjusted between each iteration
Evolution of Mid-Fidelity Prototypes (time follows left to right)
Project Scope:
Dental professionals experience significant finger and joint strain from prolonged instrument use, with excessive pinch force disproportionately affecting women and practitioners with smaller hands. Our team partnered with Tufts Dental School to explore how an ergonomic intervention could reduce these demands without disrupting established clinical workflows.
Key Decisions:
1) A focus on detachable grips instead of redesigning the entire tool to increase scalability, accessibility, and affordability while lowering overall production costs.
2) Pivoting away from the classic bulbous shape to exploring effective textures for grip and smaller curves that support fingers. Our research found that the right texture can prevent fatigue by affording a firmer grip on the tool, thereby alleviating pressure on the fingers.
3) Printing mid-fidelity prototypes with PLA instead of TPU to prioritize the textures over the feeling of the grip. This shifted the focus from overall feel to shape and comfort.
4) Consulting with Dr. Peter Arsenault of Tufts Dental School about our mid-fidelity prototypes before diving into user testing. This revealed the desire for dentists to sterilize the grip while it is still on the tool, calling for a slimmer design.
5) Designing with the constraints of a dental cassette to accomodate any sterilization method (i.e. tools placed in the cassette or in a bag before undergoing heat or chemical treatment).
Early-Stage Sketches of Explorer Redesigns
Low-fidelity prototype of adjustable handles to accomodate a variety of hand sizes.
Literature Reviews & Competitive Analysis
This project started one year before I joined the lab. They had not yet pinpointed what tool they wanted to redesign. In order to familiarize myself with the team’s mission and the problems that dentists were facing, the new team members and I conducted literature reviews and and competitive analysis on potential products. After reviewing articles and the team’s previous interviews, we all created presentations with prospective innovations and solutions to chronic pain. I researched tinnitus, and here is the presentation my subgroup made.
After our subgroups presented, we discussed the feasibility of these solutions, as well as taking into account the competitive analysis that we conducted. We decided that it would make the most sense for us to redesign a handpiece, like the explorer tool. We each conducted a competitive analysis for the explorer tool in particular and created some sketches of ergonomic hand pieces to brainstorm before we went on to building low-fidelity prototype.
Assembly of Low-Fidelity Prototype with Attachable Grips
When Testing Changed Our Direction
After our initial prototype cycle, we brought our concepts to a Tufts Dental expert for review. He evaluated the designs for comfort, grip, geometry, and compatibility with standard sterilization cassettes.
The feedback challenged our initial direction. Rather than continuing to refine concepts that weren't meeting clinical needs, we returned to patent and competitive research and reconsidered our approach before beginning another round of iteration.
One critical constraint was diameter: increasing the grip size could improve comfort, but making it too large prevented the instrument from fitting within the sterilization cassette used in clinical workflows. This required us to balance ergonomic benefit with an existing operational constraint.
Second Iteration / Usability Testing
Following expert review, we developed a new round of concepts and conducted informal usability testing with participants across a range of hand sizes. Because hand size was central to the original ergonomic problem, this allowed us to evaluate how the designs accommodated different users before continuing development.
We evaluated differences in grip, comfort, finger positioning, slippage, and overall form, using observations and participant feedback to determine which design direction warranted further development.
Converging on a Design
Through expert review and usability testing, the team converged on one design direction for continued development. The selected concept originated from my subteam and incorporated the ergonomic and clinical constraints identified throughout our research and testing.
My involvement concluded at this stage, with the selected concept positioned for further iteration rather than as a finalized product.
Presenting our Research at the NEC HFES 2025 Student Conference
Low-Fidelity Prototypes
As I had more time to think, my low-fidelity prototypes went beyond the idea of the sketches. My prototypes include adjustable handle size, removable grips and end-pieces, as well as dynamic silicon handles and a built-in grip. We also conducted user interviews, where I got to speak with dentists and dental assistants about the pain that they experience while using the explorer tool. I incorporated their feedback into my low-fidelity prototypes.
Rather than redesigning the explorer itself, we pivoted toward an attachable grip that could improve ergonomics while preserving the instrument clinicians were already trained and comfortable using. An attachment also offered a lower-cost, more scalable solution that could accommodate existing instruments.
Design decision: Improve the interaction without replacing the familiar tool.
Assembly of Low-Fidelity Prototype with Attachable Grips
Mid-Fidelity Prototypes
We divided into three design subteams to explore distinct approaches to grip geometry: angular, bulbous, and finger-grooved forms. Across approximately 12 team prototypes, we investigated how shape, diameter, texture, and finger positioning could reduce slippage and accommodate different grip styles without obstructing clinicians' view of the mouth.
My subteam developed four SolidWorks iterations, progressively shifting from angular forms toward texture and finger support. Later iterations incorporated finger grooves and varied textures while maintaining 360° rotation, dual-ended use, and multiple grip positions.
Each iteration balanced support with freedom of movement. We adjusted groove depth, geometry, texture, and diameter to prevent finger slippage without restricting grip position or visibility.
Iteration 3: Introduced finger grooves to support pinch, tripod, and digital pronate grips while maintaining rotation and dual-ended use.
Iteration 4: Refined groove dimensions and tested ribbed and honeycomb textures to improve finger support without restricting movement.
Early stage prototypes and what/why was adjusted between each iteration
Evolution of Mid-Fidelity Prototypes (time follows left to right)
Evolution of Mid-Fidelity Prototypes (time follows left to right)
When Testing Changed Our Direction
After our initial prototype cycle, we brought our concepts to a Tufts Dental expert for review. He evaluated the designs for comfort, grip, geometry, and compatibility with standard sterilization cassettes.
The feedback challenged our initial direction. Rather than continuing to refine concepts that weren't meeting clinical needs, we returned to patent and competitive research and reconsidered our approach before beginning another round of iteration.
One critical constraint was diameter: increasing the grip size could improve comfort, but making it too large prevented the instrument from fitting within the sterilization cassette used in clinical workflows. This required us to balance ergonomic benefit with an existing operational constraint.
Second Iteration / Usability Testing
Following expert review, we developed a new round of concepts and conducted informal usability testing with participants across a range of hand sizes. Because hand size was central to the original ergonomic problem, this allowed us to evaluate how the designs accommodated different users before continuing development.
We evaluated differences in grip, comfort, finger positioning, slippage, and overall form, using observations and participant feedback to determine which design direction warranted further development.
Converging on a Design
Through expert review and usability testing, the team converged on one design direction for continued development. The selected concept originated from my subteam and incorporated the ergonomic and clinical constraints identified throughout our research and testing.
My involvement concluded at this stage, with the selected concept positioned for further iteration rather than as a finalized product.
Presenting our Research at the NEC HFES 2025 Student Conference