ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
Impact of using magnifying dental loupes on clinical performance during tooth preparation: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of dental loupes and operating microscopes on restorative performance of preclinical and clinical dental students: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Effect of massed versus distributed preclinical training on subgingival instrumentation skill across the preclinical-to-clinical transition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effects of Galilean Loupes on Dental Students' Posture and Cavity Preparation Quality.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- Survey on the usage and frequency of digital magnification devices in dentistry.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A qualitative analysis of Chinese novice general dentists' perspectives on using ergonomic loupes in clinical practice.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To assess whether using magnification loupes affects tooth preparation working posture performed by undergraduate students and dentistry professionals and whether it influences the quality of the preparation, operator satisfaction and procedure time. Material and Methods: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (CRD42023482377). Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for relevant articles published up to August 2023. Clinical or laboratory studies evaluating cavities or dental preparations performed with and without magnification loupes were considered eligible. The outcomes were operator working posture, dental preparation quality, operator satisfaction, and procedure time. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal tools for Quasi-Experimental Studies. Results: The searches retrieved 1493 articles. Based on the eligibility criteria, 11 laboratory studies were included, where 410 undergraduate and graduate dental students conducted dental preparations in 1851 dental specimens. Of the 11 selected studies, 6 evaluated the working posture, 6 assessed the quality of the dental preparations, 5 reported operator satisfaction, and 2 assessed procedure time. The results showed that magnifying loupes significantly improved operator working posture, but did not influence the quality of tooth preparations. Although satisfaction reports about experiences with magnifying loupes were favorable, no significant difference was found. Conclusions: Magnification loupes improved operator working posture. However, clinical studies with more scientific evidence are needed for steady conclusions regarding operator satisfaction and procedural time.
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.