Abstract. We evaluated the near visual acuity of 40 dentists and its improvement by using different magnification devices. The acuity was tested with miniaturized E-optotype tests on a negatoscope under the following conditions:

ObjectivesThis study examined the near visual acuity of dentists in relation to age and magnification under simulated clinical conditions.Materials and methodsMiniaturized visual tests were performed in posterior teeth of a dental phantom head in a simulated clinical setting (dental chair, operating lamp, dental mirror). The visual acuity of 40 dentists was measured under the following conditions: (1) natural visual acuity, distance of 300 mm; (2) natural visual acuity, free choice of distance; (3) Galilean loupes, magnification of ×2.5; (4) Keplerian loupes, ×4.3; (5) operating microscope, ×4, integrated light; (6) operating microscope, ×6.4, integrated light.ResultsThe visual acuity varied widely between individuals and was significantly lower in the group ≥40 years of age (p < 0.001). Significant differences were found between all tested conditions (p < 0.01). Furthermore, a correlation between visual acuity and age was found for all conditions. The performance with the microscope was better than with loupes even with comparable magnification factors. Some dentists had a better visual acuity without optical aids than others with Galilean loupes.ConclusionsNear visual acuity under simulated clinical conditions varies widely between individuals and decreases throughout life. Visual deficiencies can be compensated for with optical aids.Clinical relevanceNewly developed miniaturized vision tests have allowed, in a clinically relevant way, to evaluate the influence of magnification and age on the near visual acuity of dentists.

Many dentists were not aware of their visual handicaps. Optical aids such as loupes or microscopes should be used early enough to compensate for individual or age-related visual deficiencies.

All the different rater panels were less satisfied with the facial aesthetics of patients with clefts compared with that of control patients. Further research should evaluate whether these findings correlate with patients' self-perception and to what extent it affects the patients' psychosocial well-being.

The question of whether findings obtained under standardized conditions are valuable for the habitual setting of each dentist's private practice seems clinically relevant.