The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of magnifying loupes (×2.5) on the quality of tooth preparation for complete coverage crowns; performed by predoctoral students using an objective and quantitative digital method.

Forty-two predoctoral students were randomly assigned into 2 groups to perform tooth preparation for a complete coverage crown on a mandibular first molar in a manikin, with and without the use of magnifying loupes. All preparations were digitally evaluated by PrepCheck 3.0 (Dentsply Sirona). Parameters including tooth reduction, total occlusal convergence (TOC), undercut, margin quality and surface quality were assessed. Continuous data were analysed using Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests. Ordinal data were analysed by McNemer's tests. To further detect the majority pattern ( > 50%) in each group (with and without loupes), one-sample t-test or one-sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed. The level of significance was set at p = .001 after Bonferroni adjustments for multiple testing.

No significant differences in the measured outcomes were found between the groups with or without the use of magnifying loupes (p > .002). The majority (>50%) of both groups had no undercuts (99.3% and 99.4% both p < .001) and the preparation type was within tolerance (81.6% and 85.3%, both p < .001) with acceptable margin (86.4% and 86.3%, both p < .001) and acceptable surface quality (99.0% and 99.1%, both p < .001). However, the majority of both groups underprepared occlusally (96.0% and 95.4%, both p < .001) and axially (65.3% and 67%, both p < .001). Only 30.0%-42.1% of the participants achieved the TOC within 0-20°.

Within the limitations of this study, the use of magnification loupes does not appear to significantly improve the quality of tooth preparation for complete coverage crown. The TOC was also found to be overprepared and occlusally underprepared.

The use of magnification in dentistry appears to be of increasing interest. This is also reflected in our own specialty, with a number of optical companies exhibiting their products at orthodontic conferences and meetings. This article reviews the principles of magnification, briefly discusses the magnification loupes that are available on the market at the present time, and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of using magnification for orthodontic treatment.

Magnification loupes are used in dentistry where increased visual performance is needed. The interest and use of loupes among dental practitioners and students appears to be growing. Despite this little quantitative data regarding the use of loupes in clinical practice and factors governing their purchase among dental trainers and trainees is available.

To determine the extent of use of loupes among dental trainers and trainees in the UK and identify what factors influence their choice of selection.

A proforma questionnaire was designed to collect the information required and was handed out dental trainers and trainees.

Use of loupes is more common among the dental trainers (44%) than trainees (28%). Of the nonusers, increased interest among the trainees (83.6%) and trainers (50%) in purchasing loupes was noted. Price was found to be the most important factor during purchase. The majority of users opted for 2.5×; and a light source was a popular choice. Both users and nonusers in the study group had an affinity towards "through-the-lens" type. No significant variation in back/neck discomfort between the users and nonusers was found.

Use of loupes among dental trainers and trainees remains low. Reduction in price and provision of information could increase the number of loupe users.

This study examined the near visual acuity of dentists in relation to age and magnification under simulated clinical conditions.

Miniaturized visual tests were performed in posterior teeth of a dental phantom head in a simulated clinical setting (dental chair, operating lamp, dental mirror). The visual acuity of 40 dentists was measured under the following conditions: (1) natural visual acuity, distance of 300 mm; (2) natural visual acuity, free choice of distance; (3) Galilean loupes, magnification of ×2.5; (4) Keplerian loupes, ×4.3; (5) operating microscope, ×4, integrated light; (6) operating microscope, ×6.4, integrated light.

The visual acuity varied widely between individuals and was significantly lower in the group ≥40 years of age (p < 0.001). Significant differences were found between all tested conditions (p < 0.01). Furthermore, a correlation between visual acuity and age was found for all conditions. The performance with the microscope was better than with loupes even with comparable magnification factors. Some dentists had a better visual acuity without optical aids than others with Galilean loupes.

Near visual acuity under simulated clinical conditions varies widely between individuals and decreases throughout life. Visual deficiencies can be compensated for with optical aids.

Newly developed miniaturized vision tests have allowed, in a clinically relevant way, to evaluate the influence of magnification and age on the near visual acuity of dentists.

Bracket bonding has been a major advance in orthodontic treatment. However, the method of debonding can lead to diverse problems such as enamel fractures, enamel loss and enamel scratching. In this clinical investigation we aimed to evaluate the influence of wearing dental loupes on enamel damage during the debonding procedure.

22 consecutive patients were randomly assigned in a split-mouth study to evaluate adhesive removal with and without the use of dental loupes (2.5×, LED headlight). Tooth replicas in epoxy resin were made from silicone impressions. Electron microscopic images (50× magnification) of 394 buccal enamel surfaces were evaluated according to an enamel damage index (EDI), line angle grooves (LAG) and composite residues (CR) on anterior teeth, premolars and molars.

The EDI revealed highly significant advantages for debonding with dental loupes, with which the EDI was significantly higher for molars, while still less than without dental loupes. We detected no differences between the tooth groups without dental loupes. We found significantly fewer LAG on anterior teeth debonded with dental loupes. CR were fewer in the dental loupes group, and we noted no significant differences between the tooth groups.

Dental loupes affect the quality of the debonding procedure, resulting in less enamel damage and composite residue, as well as fewer LAG compared to the control group. We therefore strongly recommend the use of dental loupes in orthodontic debonding procedures.

We evaluated the near visual acuity of 40 dentists and its improvement by using different magnification devices. The acuity was tested with miniaturized E-optotype tests on a negatoscope under the following conditions: 1. natural visual acuity, 300 mm; 2. single lens loupe, 2×, 250 mm; 3. Galilean loupe, 2.5×, 380 mm; and 4. Keplerian loupe, 4.3×, 400 mm. In part 1, the influence of the magnification devices was investigated for all dentists. The Keplerian loupe obtained the highest visual acuity (4.64), followed by the Galilean loupe (2.43), the single lens loupe (1.42), and natural visual acuity (1.19). For part 2, the dentists were classified according to their age (<∕≥40 years). The younger dentists' group achieved a significantly higher visual acuity with all magnification devices (p<0.001). For part 3, the dentists were grouped according to their natural visual acuity. The group with the higher natural visual acuity achieved significantly higher visual acuity with all magnification devices than did the group of dentists with the lower natural visual acuity (p<0.01). It can be concluded that near visual acuity varies highly between individuals and decreases during the lifetime. Independent of age or natural vision, visual acuity can be significantly improved by using magnification devices.

Loupe magnification is widely used in medicine. Hand surgeons, in particular, use magnification for virtually all cases. The physical examination is more effective with magnification including improved tissue and foreign body identification. It is valuable for meticulous debridement of foreign material. Skin closure is much improved with more clearly identified wound edges. The detail and precision is vastly better allowing more ideal surgical repairs. These principles could improve wound care quality for emergency physicians as well. This article will compare wound visualization with the naked eye and 2.5 magnification loupes to determine the relative value for an emergency physician.

Using a cadaver model, this article will compare relative visualization using no magnification and 2.5 loupe magnification. Comparative photographs will be used for identification of wound edges and anatomical structures.

The photographs presented demonstrate relative visualization with the naked eye and the 2.5 loupes. These photographs demonstrate the advantage of magnification in wound care and closure. The only significant costs are the loupes which should not be a deterrent for emergency physicians.

Loupe magnification is the standard for quality wound care and closure in hand surgery. They are also used in many other fields of medicine, including facial and plastic surgery. Magnification is now common and has proven effective. Emergency physicians, in general, have not readily embraced the use of magnification. Hand wounds and facial laceration repairs in the emergency department (ED) are 2 areas magnification could be particularly helpful. This study clearly demonstrates the relative advantage of magnification for tissue identification, debridement, and skin closure. Magnification is a potentially valuable tool in laceration repair in the ED. It greatly enhances results at minimal costs.

This survey examined the use of surgical telescopes (STs) in a large senior dental student class. The percentage of students who purchased STs, factors that influenced those purchases, frequency/patterns of use, and purchase satisfaction were investigated. The survey return rate was 85.3% (128 of 150). Among the respondents, 86% had purchased STs and 14% had not. The most frequent motive for ST purchase was advice received from others (43%); ergonomic reasons were cited by 21% of users. Fixed-lens designs were selected more frequently (70%) than flip-down systems (30%). Nearly all ST purchases were made during the first year of dental school (95%), and low-power magnification (x 2-2.5) was chosen by 88% of purchasers. STs were used more often for operative dentistry, fixed prosthodontics, endodontics, and pediatric dentistry than for practice in other disciplines. ST users expressed a high level of satisfaction with their purchases (84%). The most common reason given for not purchasing STs was being able to see well enough without them (9 of 18; 50%).

This study had two aims, first, to quantify the level of the use of magnification in general dental practice in Scotland and second, to determine the current and potential areas of clinical use of magnification by general dental practitioners.

A questionnaire was sent to all general dental practitioners in Scotland with a Health Board list number (n = 1790). The questionnaire asked the practitioners about their experience of magnification and their opinions on possible areas for clinical use. An information sheet and a prepaid envelope were included with the questionnaire.

One thousand two hundred and eighty (72%) of the dentists replied to the questionnaire. Nine percent of the respondents routinely used magnification. The level of routine use of magnification by practitioners increased with time since qualification. The suggested areas of clinical use of magnification by all the respondents were crown and bridge work, diagnosis and radiography. The routine users of magnification had a more positive view of magnification than non-users.

Routine use of magnification was associated with the length of time the practitioner had been qualified and the attendance at a course at which magnification was discussed. The perceived uses of magnification depended on the experience of the practitioner with magnification. It was considered suitable for all clinical procedures except orthodontics and prosthodontics.