Premium
Implementing magnification during pre‐clinical training: Effects on procedure quality and working posture
Author(s) -
Pazos Júlia Margato,
Wajngarten Danielle,
Dovigo Lívia Nordi,
Garcia Patrícia Petromilli Nordi Sasso
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
european journal of dental education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.583
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1600-0579
pISSN - 1396-5883
DOI - 10.1111/eje.12517
Subject(s) - magnification , molar , medicine , quality (philosophy) , dentistry , orthodontics , oral cavity , class (philosophy) , computer science , artificial intelligence , philosophy , epistemology
Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of magnification on the quality of two pre‐clinical procedures, class I cavity preparations and composite resin restorations, and to evaluate the working posture. Methods This was an experimental laboratory study. The response variables were the quality of cavity preparations and Class I restorations as well as the working posture adopted during the execution of these procedures. The independent variables were the magnification system under four levels (unaided visualisation, the use of a simple loupe, the use of a Galilean loupe and the use of a Keplerian loupe) and the artificial teeth treated. Class I cavity preparations and restorations (N = 320) were performed using standardised procedures, and the quality achieved was evaluated using pre‐established criteria. Working posture was recorded using digital video cameras and was evaluated using the Compliance Assessment of Dental Ergonomic Posture Requirements (CADEP). A two‐factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple comparison test were performed ( α = 0.05). Results The quality of cavity preparation did not differ significantly amongst the different magnification systems ( P = 0.082). Galilean and Keplerian systems had a positive impact on restoration quality only for the left mandibular first molar ( P = 0.04). Higher posture scores were observed when Galilean and Keplerian loupes ( P = 0.01) were used, regardless of the tooth being treated. Conclusion The use of Galilean and Keplerian magnification lenses did not affect the quality of the pre‐clinical procedures performed whilst improved the scores of ergonomic posture.