Visual Acuity and Experience with Magnification Devices in Swiss Dental Practices

Eichenberger, Martina; Perrin, Philippe; Ramseyer, Simon; Lussi, Adrian

doi:10.2341/14-103-c

Cited by 33 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The weak correlation between self-assessed and objectively measured visual performance is consistent with the study of Eichenberger et al, 11 where dentists could not reliably estimate their visual potential. Of special clinical interest is the group with the weakest objective results and a self-assessment between 2.5 and 5.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…This implicates the need for regular near vision tests as described below. [9][10][11] This finding from previous studies could be corroborated for dental hygienists. This is in contrast to the study by Jennifer and Thomas, 18 where 60.5% of the practicing dental hygienists and 21% of the students of dental Some dental hygienists could detect structures that were 300% smaller than the structures others could detect.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Of special clinical interest is the group with the weakest objective results and a self-assessment between 2.5 and 5. [9][10][11]19 As already discussed in previous studies, younger dental professional can reduce the eye-object distance to profit from natural magnification. The second topic in the questionnaire revealed that most of the participating dental hygienists do not use loupes routinely (69% of the hygienists and 97% of the students of dental hygiene).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…This questionnaire was an adapted version of an earlier study with dentists. 11 The self-assessment of the visual performance in the questionnaire was compared with the objectively measured visual performance.…”

Section: Materials S and Me Thodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9,10 Visual deficiencies can be compensated for with magnification aids in a standardized setting as well as in the individualized setting of a private practice. [9][10][11] It can be presumed that restricted near vision has an impact on the quality of dental diagnosis and therapy. 8 What is true for dentists is also essential for dental hygienists because their daily work consists not only of probing periodontal pockets or root surfaces but also of the visual detection of carious lesions, filling fractures and calculus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Near visual acuity of dental hygienists with and without magnification

Eichenberger

Perrin

Sieber

et al. 2018

Int J Dental Hygiene

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Materials S and Me Thodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Near visual acuity of dental hygienists with and without magnification

Eichenberger

Perrin

Sieber

et al. 2018

Int J Dental Hygiene

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The impact of the use of magnifying dental loupes on the performance of undergraduate dental students undertaking simulated dental procedures

Braga

Robb

Love

et al. 2020

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the use of magnification (2.5x dental loupes) for third‐year dental students in simulated endodontics and fixed prosthodontics assessments compared to those using no magnification. Methods Upon institutional review board exemption, third‐year dental students were assessed during endodontics and fixed prosthodontics exams in the simulation laboratory. The endodontic group (n = 93) consisted of students who made an endodontic access preparation on a plastic lower left first molar (Nissan). The prosthodontic group (n = 86) consisted of students who made porcelain fused to metal preparation (PFM) on a plastic lower right first molar mounted on an acrylic lower jaw model (Columbia Dentoform). The impact of the use of dental loupes was evaluated. Assessment of the tasks was undertaken by experts—calibrated, blinded examiners—using a standardized marking rubric for each task. The statistical analysis included Chi‐square test, one‐way ANOVA, and Logistic regression. The level of significance adopted was 5%. Results Students’ preparations using magnification were better compared with those without magnification. Students using magnification had a significantly higher pass rate than those not using magnification in both endodontic and prosthodontic groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions In conclusion, third‐year dental students who used loupes in the endodontics and prosthodontics simulation laboratory had significantly higher scores at the assessments.

show abstract

The effect of Galilean magnification loupes on the visual acuity and working distance of dental students

Pazos,

dos Santos,

Dovigo

et al. 2024

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the visual acuity and working distance of dental students using Galilean loupes at different magnification levels.MethodsThe participants included 50 undergraduate dentistry students selected from each class in the second to fifth years (N = 200) of São Paulo State University, School of Dentistry, Araraquara. The response variables were (i) the working distance between the operator's eyes and the mouth of the dental phantom head, and (ii) visual acuity. The independent variables were the five levels of the Galilean magnification system (naked eye, Galilean loupe simulator without magnification, and Galilean loupes with 2.5×, 3.0×, or 3.5× magnification) and academic year. Visual acuity was measured using a miniature Snellen eye chart inserted into the Class I cavities of the maxillary molars. After verifying the assumptions of normality and sphericity, a mixed repeated measures analysis was performed (α = 0.05).ResultsStatistical significance was found between the “magnification system” and “academic year” for visual acuity (p < 0.001). For the second‐, fourth‐, and fifth‐year participants, there were no significant differences in visual acuity between the naked eye and different magnifications of the Galilean loupes, which were superior to and significantly different from that of the loupe simulator. For the working distance, statistical significance was observed in the interaction between “magnification system” and “academic year” (p = 0.008). For the third‐, fourth‐, and fifth‐year participants, there was no significant difference in the working distance between the naked eye and different magnifications of the Galilean loupes, which were superior to and significantly different from that of the simulator.ConclusionIt was concluded that the different magnification levels of the Galilean loupes did not influence the visual acuity or distance between the eyes of the operator and the mouth of the dental phantom head in the evaluated students.

show abstract

Visual Acuity and Experience with Magnification Devices in Swiss Dental Practices

Abstract: 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.

Cited by 33 publications

References 18 publications

Near visual acuity of dental hygienists with and without magnification

Near visual acuity of dental hygienists with and without magnification

The impact of the use of magnifying dental loupes on the performance of undergraduate dental students undertaking simulated dental procedures

The effect of Galilean magnification loupes on the visual acuity and working distance of dental students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About