Trial reportEuropean journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe2026
Implementing Deflection Loupes in Endodontic Training of General Dentistry Residents: Effects on Treatment Quality, Procedure Time and Ergonomics.
Trial report in European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate access cavity preparation quality, procedure time, and working posture of general dentistry residents using different types of magnification (naked eye, traditional loupe and deflection loupe).
methodsThis in vitro study used a randomised cross-over design. Thirty general dentistry residents performed access cavity preparations using naked eye, traditional loupe, and deflection loupe on plastic right maxillary first molars in manikins. The working posture was evaluated using the Posture Assessment Instrument (PAI). The access cavity preparation quality scores, procedure time, and PAI scores were compared between groups. Questionnaire results on residents' perceptions were also analysed.
resultsThe access cavity preparation scores were higher for both loupe groups than the naked eye group. Procedure time was not different between groups. Both PAI_total and PAI_neck scores were statistically lower in the deflection loupe group and traditional loupe group than in the naked eye group. The deflection loupe group had lower PAI_neck scores than the traditional loupe group. Both traditional loupe and deflection loupe were rated positively in terms of precision, ergonomics, treatment quality, and adaptability. The deflection loupe was considered superior in ergonomics but less comfortable. Eye fatigue is a common problem for both types of loupes.
conclusionBoth deflection loupe and traditional loupe can improve working posture and access cavity preparation quality. Deflection loupe had an ergonomic advantage over traditional loupe. The comfort of deflection loupe needed improvement because of its heavy weight. Another perceived problem of deflection loupe and traditional loupe was eye fatigue.
Indexed as
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.