Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Impact of dental loupes and operating microscopes on restorative performance of preclinical and clinical dental students: a pilot study.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of magnification devices into dental education is widely recommended, yet evidence regarding their impact on student performance remains limited. The present study evaluated the effect of dental loupes (DL) and dental operating microscopes (OPMI) on the quality of crown preparation and provisional restoration among preclinical and clinical dental students compared with standard protective glasses (SG).
methodsSixty dental students participated: 30 preclinical (fifth semester) and 30 clinical (ninth semester). Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: DL (ZEISS EyeMag Pro S 3.5 × 400), OPMI (ZEISS EXTARO 300), or SG (control). Each prepared a crown and a provisional restoration. Outcomes were assessed conventionally (expert ratings) and digitally (objective parameters). Performance differences were analyzed using generalized estimating equations (p < 0.05).
resultsOptical magnification significantly improved restorative performance compared with SG. Preclinical students using OPMI achieved the highest overall scores, while clinical students performed best with DL. The Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) confirmed significant differences between OPMI and SG, but not between preclinical and clinical groups.
conclusionsOptical magnification improved restorative outcomes compared with standard glasses. OPMI use was most beneficial in preclinical training, whereas DL appeared more advantageous in clinical settings. Integrating optical magnification into dental education enhances skill acquisition and clinical quality. Within the limitations of the present pilot study, microscope-assisted training improved the quality of restorative preparation outcomes in a preclinical student setting. Further studies are required to confirm these findings in larger cohorts and clinical environments.
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.