Do Different Brands of Dental Loupes and their Magnification Influence Working Posture and the Quality of Tooth Preparations?

Aims: This study aimed to assess the effect of different commercial brands of dental loupes and their magnification systems on the working posture and quality of preclinical tooth preparations. Methodology: An experimental laboratory study was conducted. The response variables were: 1) angular deviation of the neck; 2) working distance; and 3) quality of tooth preparation. The independent variables were the dental loupe brands (LumaDent, Design for Vision, Univet and Q-Optics) and type of magnification (naked eye, Galilean 2.5x, Galilean 3.0x and Ergonomic 3.0x). Class I tooth preparations were performed on artificial maxillary left-first molars in a dental mannequin (n=10, N=110). Angular deviations were measured using the Software for Postural Assessment and the working distance was measured using the Measure App. The quality of tooth preparations was assessed using the Class One Cavity Preparation Assessment method. Descriptive statistics were performed, and after verifying the assumptions, confidence intervals were created allowing comparisons between the means (α=.05). Results: All magnification systems, regardless of their brands, promoted a greater working distance and a lower angular deviation of the neck compared to the naked eye. The Ergonomic loupes offered greater working distance and reduced angular deviation compared to the Galilean loupes. There was no statistical difference between both the Ergonomic loupes tested and among all the Galilean loupes tested. The quality of the tooth preparations was similar when done with naked eye and all magnification systems, regardless of their brands. Conclusion: The working posture was more affected by the type of magnification system used, rather than their commercial brands. Ergonomic loupes, regardless their brands, provided the lowest angular deviation of the neck and the longest working distance, improving significantly the working posture. The quality of the tooth preparations was not affected by the dental loupe brands and their magnification systems.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research
Published
2025-05-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.9734/jammr/2025/v37i55819
Primary Topic
Occupational health in dentistry
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do Different Brands of Dental Loupes and their Magnification Influence Working Posture and the Quality of Tooth Preparations?

Ana Carolina Botta, Patrícia Petromilli Nordi Sasso Garcia, Júlia Margato Pazos, Jéssica Silva
1 links
Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research
Occupational health in dentistry
article

Do Different Brands of Dental Loupes and their Magnification Influence Working Posture and the Quality of Tooth Preparations?

Ana Carolina Botta, Patrícia Petromilli Nordi Sasso Garcia, Júlia Margato Pazos, Jéssica Silva
article en

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to assess the effect of different commercial brands of dental loupes and their magnification systems on the working posture and quality of preclinical tooth preparations. Methodology: An experimental laboratory study was conducted. The response variables were: 1) angular deviation of the neck; 2) working distance; and 3) quality of tooth preparation. The independent variables were the dental loupe brands (LumaDent, Design for Vision, Univet and Q-Optics) and type of magnification (naked eye, Galilean 2.5x, Galilean 3.0x and Ergonomic 3.0x). Class I tooth preparations were performed on artificial maxillary left-first molars in a dental mannequin (n=10, N=110). Angular deviations were measured using the Software for Postural Assessment and the working distance was measured using the Measure App. The quality of tooth preparations was assessed using the Class One Cavity Preparation Assessment method. Descriptive statistics were performed, and after verifying the assumptions, confidence intervals were created allowing comparisons between the means (α=.05). Results: All magnification systems, regardless of their brands, promoted a greater working distance and a lower angular deviation of the neck compared to the naked eye. The Ergonomic loupes offered greater working distance and reduced angular deviation compared to the Galilean loupes. There was no statistical difference between both the Ergonomic loupes tested and among all the Galilean loupes tested. The quality of the tooth preparations was similar when done with naked eye and all magnification systems, regardless of their brands. Conclusion: The working posture was more affected by the type of magnification system used, rather than their commercial brands. Ergonomic loupes, regardless their brands, provided the lowest angular deviation of the neck and the longest working distance, improving significantly the working posture. The quality of the tooth preparations was not affected by the dental loupe brands and their magnification systems.

Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical ResearchVol. 37(5)
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Occupational health in dentistry
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.