{"title":"在普通牙科住院医师的牙髓训练中实施偏转镜:对治疗质量、手术时间和人体工程学的影响。","authors":"Kexian Xie, Yuangao Li, Ning Ma, Xiao Wang","doi":"10.1111/eje.70030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate access cavity preparation quality, procedure time, and working posture of general dentistry residents using different types of magnification (naked eye, traditional loupe and deflection loupe).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This in vitro study used a randomised cross-over design. Thirty general dentistry residents performed access cavity preparations using naked eye, traditional loupe, and deflection loupe on plastic right maxillary first molars in manikins. The working posture was evaluated using the Posture Assessment Instrument (PAI). The access cavity preparation quality scores, procedure time, and PAI scores were compared between groups. Questionnaire results on residents' perceptions were also analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The access cavity preparation scores were higher for both loupe groups than the naked eye group. Procedure time was not different between groups. Both PAI_total and PAI_neck scores were statistically lower in the deflection loupe group and traditional loupe group than in the naked eye group. The deflection loupe group had lower PAI_neck scores than the traditional loupe group. Both traditional loupe and deflection loupe were rated positively in terms of precision, ergonomics, treatment quality, and adaptability. The deflection loupe was considered superior in ergonomics but less comfortable. Eye fatigue is a common problem for both types of loupes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both deflection loupe and traditional loupe can improve working posture and access cavity preparation quality. Deflection loupe had an ergonomic advantage over traditional loupe. The comfort of deflection loupe needed improvement because of its heavy weight. Another perceived problem of deflection loupe and traditional loupe was eye fatigue.</p>","PeriodicalId":50488,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dental Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing Deflection Loupes in Endodontic Training of General Dentistry Residents: Effects on Treatment Quality, Procedure Time and Ergonomics.\",\"authors\":\"Kexian Xie, Yuangao Li, Ning Ma, Xiao Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/eje.70030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate access cavity preparation quality, procedure time, and working posture of general dentistry residents using different types of magnification (naked eye, traditional loupe and deflection loupe).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This in vitro study used a randomised cross-over design. Thirty general dentistry residents performed access cavity preparations using naked eye, traditional loupe, and deflection loupe on plastic right maxillary first molars in manikins. The working posture was evaluated using the Posture Assessment Instrument (PAI). The access cavity preparation quality scores, procedure time, and PAI scores were compared between groups. Questionnaire results on residents' perceptions were also analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The access cavity preparation scores were higher for both loupe groups than the naked eye group. Procedure time was not different between groups. Both PAI_total and PAI_neck scores were statistically lower in the deflection loupe group and traditional loupe group than in the naked eye group. The deflection loupe group had lower PAI_neck scores than the traditional loupe group. Both traditional loupe and deflection loupe were rated positively in terms of precision, ergonomics, treatment quality, and adaptability. The deflection loupe was considered superior in ergonomics but less comfortable. Eye fatigue is a common problem for both types of loupes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both deflection loupe and traditional loupe can improve working posture and access cavity preparation quality. Deflection loupe had an ergonomic advantage over traditional loupe. The comfort of deflection loupe needed improvement because of its heavy weight. Another perceived problem of deflection loupe and traditional loupe was eye fatigue.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Dental Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Dental Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.70030\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dental Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.70030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Implementing Deflection Loupes in Endodontic Training of General Dentistry Residents: Effects on Treatment Quality, Procedure Time and Ergonomics.
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate access cavity preparation quality, procedure time, and working posture of general dentistry residents using different types of magnification (naked eye, traditional loupe and deflection loupe).
Methods: This in vitro study used a randomised cross-over design. Thirty general dentistry residents performed access cavity preparations using naked eye, traditional loupe, and deflection loupe on plastic right maxillary first molars in manikins. The working posture was evaluated using the Posture Assessment Instrument (PAI). The access cavity preparation quality scores, procedure time, and PAI scores were compared between groups. Questionnaire results on residents' perceptions were also analysed.
Results: The access cavity preparation scores were higher for both loupe groups than the naked eye group. Procedure time was not different between groups. Both PAI_total and PAI_neck scores were statistically lower in the deflection loupe group and traditional loupe group than in the naked eye group. The deflection loupe group had lower PAI_neck scores than the traditional loupe group. Both traditional loupe and deflection loupe were rated positively in terms of precision, ergonomics, treatment quality, and adaptability. The deflection loupe was considered superior in ergonomics but less comfortable. Eye fatigue is a common problem for both types of loupes.
Conclusion: Both deflection loupe and traditional loupe can improve working posture and access cavity preparation quality. Deflection loupe had an ergonomic advantage over traditional loupe. The comfort of deflection loupe needed improvement because of its heavy weight. Another perceived problem of deflection loupe and traditional loupe was eye fatigue.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the European Journal of Dental Education is to publish original topical and review articles of the highest quality in the field of Dental Education. The Journal seeks to disseminate widely the latest information on curriculum development teaching methodologies assessment techniques and quality assurance in the fields of dental undergraduate and postgraduate education and dental auxiliary personnel training. The scope includes the dental educational aspects of the basic medical sciences the behavioural sciences the interface with medical education information technology and distance learning and educational audit. Papers embodying the results of high-quality educational research of relevance to dentistry are particularly encouraged as are evidence-based reports of novel and established educational programmes and their outcomes.