Implementing magnification during pre-clinical training: Effects on procedure quality and working posture
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 varia...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/198796 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eje.12517 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/198796 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | ergonomics magnification occupational health restorative procedures visual acuity |
| Sumario: | 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. |
|---|