Turkish Orthodontists and Dental Loupes: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Knowledge and Experience

Abstract

Objectives: As dental loupe use has increased within dentistry, little data have been reported for orthodontists. This study aims to determine among Turkish orthodontists the (1) prevalence of dental loupe use, (2) variables associated with dental loupe users and non-users, and (3) awareness of dental loupes. 

Materials and Methods: A Turkish-language translation of a previously published 22-question English-language questionnaire on dental loupe use and experience was sent to 1,615 Turkish orthodontic trainees and orthodontists registered with the Turkish Orthodontic Society via e-mail or post, along with a description of the study. 

Results: The response rate was 18.39%, and 12 incomplete questionnaires were excluded. Of those included, 8.42% reported using dental loupes. Among these users, significantly more were men (83.33%), aged over 46 years (79.17%), working in private practice (70.83%), had over 25 years of experience (45.83%), and wore corrective lenses (62.50%) (p<0.01). Of the 261 indicating they did not use dental loupes, significantly more (p<0.01) were women (63.98%), aged 26-30 years (34.87%), orthodontic trainees (45.59%), in a university setting (60.5%), had 5 years or less of experience (54.41%), and did not wear corrective lenses (60.54%). While significantly more non-users endorsed not being interested in buying dental loupes (92.34%), a significant number of non-users gave their reason for not buying dental loupes as not having the opportunity to try them or not having enough information (49.81%). 

Conclusion: While methodologically limited, this study revealed that orthodontists in Turkey have low knowledge and use of dental loupes. Further studies should investigate these findings.

Keywords

• Lenses
• Orthodontics
• Visual aids

Supporting Institution

NO

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval was obtained from the Marmara University Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee (decision no: 2018-206; date: 28 June 2018). The author declares no conflict of interest. This study received no external funding.

Thanks

Mikaela I Poling, BA (research assistant to Prof Craig R Dufresne, MD, FACS, FICFS, in Fairfax, Virginia, USA), provided statistical support and English language editing.

Türk Ortodontistlerin Dental Büyüteçler Hakkındaki Bilgi ve Deneyimi: Bir Anket Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Türk ortodontistleri arasında (1) dental büyüteç kullanım yaygınlığını, (2) dental büyüteç kullanan ve kullanmayanlarla ilişkili değişkenleri ve (3) dental büyüteçlere ilişkin farkındalık düzeylerini belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. 

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Büyüteç kullanımı ve deneyimi ile ilgili daha önce yayınlanmış İngilizce 22 soru formunun Türkçe tercümesi, Türk Ortodonti Derneği’ne kayıtlı 1.615 ortodontist ve ortodonti öğrencisine çalışmanın açıklamasıyla birlikte e-posta veya posta yoluyla gönderildi. 

Bulgular: Anketi eksik yanıtlayan 12 kişi hariç tutularak elde edilen yanıtlanma oranı %18,39'dur. Dahil edilenlerin % 8,42'si büyüteç kullanıyordu, önemli ölçüde (p<0.01) büyük bir kısmı erkekti (% 83,33), 46 yaşın üstündeydi (% 79,17), özel muayenehanesinde çalışıyordu (% 70,83), 25 yıldan fazla deneyimliydi (% 45,83) ve gözlük kullanıyordu (% 62,50). Büyüteç kullanmadığını belirten 261 kişiden önemli ölçüde (p<0.01) büyük bir kısmı kadındı (% 63,98), 26-30 yaş arasındaydı (% 34,87), ortodonti öğrencileriydi (% 45,59), üniversite ortamında çalışıyorlardı (% 60,5), 5 yıl veya daha az deneyime sahipti (% 54,41) ve gözlük kullanmıyordu (% 60,54). Kullanıcı olmayanların çoğu, büyüteç satın almayı düşünmezken (% 92,34), ayrıca önemli bir kısmı büyüteç satın almama gerekçeleri olarak, onları deneme fırsatına sahip olmama veya yeterli bilgiye sahip olmama olarak belirtmişlerdir (% 49,81). 

Sonuç: Metodolojik olarak sınırlı olmakla birlikte, bu çalışma Türkiye'deki ortodontistlerin dental büyüteçleri hakkında bilgi ve kullanımının düşük olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Gelecekte yapılacak çalışmaların bu bulguları doğrulaması ve genişletmesi gerekmektedir.

Keywords

• Görsel yardımlar
• Lensler
• Ortodonti

Supporting Institution

YOK

Ethical Statement

Bu makale, Marmara Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu'ndan kurumsal inceleme kurulu onayı almıştır (karar no: 2018-206; tarih: 28 Haziran 2018). Fon alınmadı ve çıkar çatışması yoktur. Bu makale başka bir yerde yayınlanmamıştır ve başka bir yerde yayınlanması düşünülmemektedir.

Thanks

Mikaela I Poling, BA (ABD, Virginia, Fairfax'te Prof. Craig R Dufresne, MD, FACS, FICFS'nin araştırma asistanı), istatistiksel destek ve İngilizce dil düzenlemesi sağladı.

References

1. Apotheker H, Jako GJ. A microscope for use in dentistry. J Microsurg. 1981;3:7-10.
2. Chang BJ. Ergonomic benefits of surgical telescope systems: selection guidelines. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2002;30(2):161-9.
3. Carr GB, Murgel CAF. The use of the operating microscope in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 2010;54(2):191-214.
4. Tibbetts LS, Shanelec D. Principles and practice of periodontal microsurgery. Int J Microdent. 2009;1:13-24.
5. Mamoun JS. A rationale for the use of highpowered magnification or microscopes in general dentistry. Gen Dent. 2009;57(1):18-26.
6. AAE Special Committee to Develop a Microscope Position Paper. AAE Position Statement. Use of microscopes and other magnification techniques. J Endod. 2012;38(8):1153-5.
7. Malterud MI. Magnification: you can’t effectively practice minimally invasive biomimetic dentistry without it. Gen Dent. 2013;61(3):14-17.
8. McCormick RJ, Poling MI. Dental instruments: operating otoscope. Br Dent J. 2014;216(11):606.

9. Juggins KJ. The bigger the better: can magnification aid orthodontic clinical practice? J Orthod. 2006;33(1):62-6.
10. Baumann DF, Brauchli L, van Waes H. The influence of dental loupes on the quality of adhesive removal in orthodontic debonding. J Orofac Orthop. 2011;72(2):125-32.
11. Al-Adawi M, Al-Blahed M, Al-Madi E, Al- Sowygh ZH, Al-Robaee AA, Al-Otaibi F, et al. The efficacy of magnification loupes in the preservation of enamel micro-morphology during debonding procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;159(3):302-310.
12. Panayi NC, Tsolakis AI, Athanasiou AE. Digital assessment of direct and virtual indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: a clinical prospective cross-sectional comparative investigation. Int Orthod. 2020;18(4):714-21.
13. Farook SA, Stokes RJ, Davis AK, Sneddon K, Collyer J. Use of dental loupes among dental trainers and trainees in the UK. J Investig Clin Dent. 2013;4(2):120-3.
14. Aboalshamat K, Daoud O, Mahmoud LA, Attal S, Alshehri R, Bin Othman D, et al. Practices and attitudes of dental loupes and their relationship to musculoskeletal disorders among dental practitioners. Int J Dent. 2020;2020:8828709.
15. Friedman M, Mora AF, Schmidt R. Microscopeassisted precision dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1999;20(8):723-737.
16. Aboalshamat KT, Al-Khotani AA, Al-Zahrani MS, Al-Safi FA, Al-Ghamdi AA, Al-Raddadi FM, et al. Current awareness and institutional implementation of magnification systems in dental practices: A five-year follow-up survey. J Dent Educ. 2023;87(4):512-519.
17. Alghilan MA, AlShehri A, Almeshrafi A, Alrumi A, Aldibasi O. Decision-Making factors among dentists for using dental magnifying loupes: A Cross-Sectional study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2025;17:99–110.
18. Forgie AH, Pine CM, Longbottom C, Pitts NB. The use of magnification in general dental practice in Scotland: a survey report. J Dent. 1999;27(7):497-502.
19. Perrin P, Ramseyer ST, Eichenberger M, Lussi A. Visual acuity of dentists in their respective clinical conditions. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(9):2055-8.
20. Eichenberger M, Perrin P, Ramseyer ST, Lussi A. Visual acuity and experience with magnification devices in Swiss dental practices. Oper Dent. 2015;40(4):E142-9.
21. Eichenberger M, Perrin P, Neuhaus KW, Bringolf U, Lussi A. Visual acuity of dentists under simulated clinical conditions. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(3):725-9.
22. Perrin P, Ramseyer ST, Eichenberger M, Lussi A. Visual acuity of dentists in their respective clinical conditions. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(9):2055-8.
23. Wajngarten D, Botta AC, Garcia PPNS. Magnification loupes in dentistry: a qualitative study of dental students' perspectives. Eur J Dent Educ. 2021;25(2):305-9.
24. Pratha AA, Sandhya R. Knowledge and attitude of choosing dental loupes among dental students: a questionnaire survey. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2017;5(7):454-6.
25. Basunbul GI. Use of magnifying loupes among dental professionals. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(12):1531-7.
26. Smith JA, Doe RG. The effect of dental loupes on postural ergonomics during non-surgical clinical procedures. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):114.
27. Neuhaus KW, Jost F, Perrin P, Lussi A. Impact of different magnification levels on visual caries detection with ICDAS. J Dent. 2015;43(12):1559-64.
28. Paşaoğlu A, Aras I, Mert A, Aras A. Survey on retention protocols among Turkish orthodontists. Turk J Orthod. 2016;29(3):51-8.
29. James T, Gilmour ASM. Magnifying loupes in modern dental practice: an update. Dent Update. 2010;37:633-6.
30. Usumez S, Noble J, Yagci A, Uysal T, Wiltshire WA. Graduate orthodontic education in Turkey: the residents’ perspective. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013;17(2):88-92.
31. Carpentier M, Aubeux D, Armengol V, Pérez F, Prud'homme T, Gaudin A. The effect of magnification loupes on spontaneous posture change of dental students during preclinical restorative training. J Dent Educ. 2019;83(4):407-15.
32. Hayes MJ, Taylor JA, Smith DR. Introducing loupes to clinical practice: dental hygienists experiences and opinions. Int J Dent Hyg. 2016;14(3):226-30.