ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Analysis of Dental Treatment Accuracy Using 2.5× Magnification Loupes Versus the Naked Eye: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background Magnification systems such as dental loupes have been increasingly incorporated into clinical dental practice to improve visualization, precision, and ergonomics. However, evidence evaluating their effectiveness during routine periodontal procedures performed by dental interns remains limited. The present study aimed to assess the effect of 2.5× dental magnification loupes on psychomotor skill acquisition and clinical treatment outcomes during ultrasonic scaling. Methodology This randomized clinical trial was conducted in the Department of Periodontology at Narayana Dental College and Hospital. A total of 20 patients requiring routine scaling were randomly assigned to either a magnification group (2.5× dental loupes) or a control group (conventional scaling without magnification), with 10 participants in each group. Ultrasonic scaling procedures were performed by dental interns. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Calculus Surface Index (CSI) component of the Oral Hygiene Index before and after scaling. Operator fatigue, treatment duration, and postural comfort were also assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25, and a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Both groups demonstrated significant reductions in CSI scores following ultrasonic scaling, with mean reductions of 1.40 ± 0.52 in the control group and 1.90 ± 0.88 in the magnification group (p < 0.001). Baseline CSI scores were comparable between the groups (p = 0.913). However, the magnification group showed a greater reduction in CSI scores after treatment compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Postural comfort was significantly better among operators using magnification loupes (p = 0.012). Nevertheless, the magnification group demonstrated slightly higher fatigue scores and longer procedure duration. Conclusions The use of 2.5× dental magnification loupes during ultrasonic scaling may enhance calculus detection and improve clinical outcomes while promoting better operator ergonomics. Incorporating magnification-assisted techniques into dental training may contribute to improved psychomotor skills and clinical performance.
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.