ReviewCureus2026
The Dental Operating Microscope in Endodontics: A Narrative Review of Clinical Applications, Supporting Evidence, and Limitations.
Review 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dental operating microscope (DOM) is now widely used in endodontics, but the strength of the evidence supporting its use differs between procedures. This narrative review summarizes the historical development and technical principles of the DOM, evaluates the evidence for its use in the main endodontic procedures, and outlines its limitations. A structured PubMed search covering 1981 to 2026 was supplemented by hand-searching of reference lists. The DOM combines magnification, coaxial illumination, and an upright working posture. In non-surgical root canal treatment, magnification consistently improves the detection of canal orifices, particularly the second mesiobuccal (MB2) canal of maxillary molars, and supports the management of calcified canals, complex anatomy, separated instruments, and perforations. Direct outcome data in non-surgical treatment are limited to observational studies. In vital pulp therapy and regenerative endodontic procedures, the DOM is used mainly to assess the pulp tissue and bleeding and to place materials precisely, but its independent effect on outcomes has not been tested. The strongest outcome evidence comes from endodontic microsurgery, in which a meta-analysis reported a pooled success rate of 94% with high-power magnification, compared with 88% without it, with the benefit concentrated in molars. However, two Cochrane reviews found no eligible randomized controlled trials, and a retrospective comparison of loupes and the microscope in endodontic surgery found no significant difference between them. Longer treatment time, cost, the learning curve, and restricted access in some patients are the main practical limitations. The DOM proves most advantageous when managing microscopic features that require high magnification and significantly impact the clinical outcome. Well-designed clinical trials are needed to determine whether its diagnostic advantages lead to better long-term outcomes.
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.