Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39052037›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2024

Effects of magnification on restorative dental preparation performance: a scoping review and level of evidence mapping.

Fernando Alexandria Soares de Oliveira, Vittorio Moraschini, Daniel Costa Ferreira de Almeida, Gustavo Oliveira Dos Santos

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Implementing Deflection Loupes in Endodontic Training of General Dentistry Residents: Effects on Treatment Quality, Procedure Time and Ergonomics.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fernando Alexandria Soares de OliveiraGraduate student, Department of Dental Clinic, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Vittorio MoraschiniDepartment of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Rua Mario dos Santos Braga, 30, Centro, Niterói, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 24020-140, Brazil. vitt.mf@gmail.com.
Daniel Costa Ferreira de AlmeidaDigital Dentistry Section, Dentistry Division, Brazilian Air Force, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Gustavo Oliveira Dos SantosDepartment of Dental Clinic, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Funding

Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro 200183/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify and describe the available evidence on the effect of magnifying devices (loupe or microscope) on the performance of restorative dental preparations. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews and registered on the INPLASY database. An electronic search was performed in four databases and Grey literature for articles published until November 2023. Eligibility criteria were determined using the PICOS strategy and comprised studies that evaluated the performance of magnification devices for restorative dental preparations. A bibliographic mapping of the evidence was conducted.

resultsSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies (n = 12) compared the performance of dental preparations using magnification loupes vs. no magnification. The magnification for loupes and microscopes ranged from 2.5x to 4.0x and 6.4x to 10x, respectively. The use of magnifying loupes improved the performance of restorative preparations in 66.6% of the evaluated studies. However, when the magnifications were compared, the greater magnification provided by microscopes did not improve preparation performance compared to magnification loupes. Regarding the place of publication, the American continent concentrates the most significant number of evidence.

conclusionsAlthough evidence for magnification improving the performance of dental preparations has increased over the last decade, basically only in vitro studies (most of which have taken place in the Americas) have been reported in the literature. The evidence suggests that magnification significantly improves restorative preparation performance when compared to non-magnification. However, higher magnifications (e.g., microscopes) do not appear to improve tooth preparation performance compared with lower magnification devices (e.g., magnification loupes). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Available evidence supports that using magnification can improve the performance of restored tooth preparations. However, high magnifications have no advantages over lower magnifications.

Indexed as

LensesDental Cavity PreparationDental Restoration, PermanentHumansMicroscopyLensesMagnificationRestorative proceduresVisual acuity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.