Basil Al Shaikhly1, Stephen K Harrel2, Mikhail Umorin3, Robert A Augsburger1, Poorya Jalali4. 1. Department of Endodontics, Texas A&M College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas. 2. Department of Periodontics, Texas A&M College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas. 3. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas. 4. Department of Endodontics, Texas A&M College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas. Electronic address: jalali@tamu.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare a dental operating microscope (DOM) with a high-resolution videoscope (VS) in terms of depth of field (DOF), resolution, and effect on fine motor skills. METHODS: Two observers used test targets to measure the resolution and DOF of the DOM and the VS. In addition, 18 participants (12 dental students and 6 endodontic residents) performed an accuracy test on a manikin head using DOM, VS, or loupes. Each participant completed a posttest survey. RESULTS: The 3 magnifications of the DOM had higher resolutions and DOF (resolution: 32, 40.3, and 50.8 line pairs/mm; DOF: 15, 10, and 6 mm) than the VS (resolution: 20.1 line pairs/mm; DOF: 5 mm). Accuracy testing showed the DOM produced better results than the VS for both resident and student groups (P < .001); however, the VS was not significantly different than loupes. The residents performed better than the students using the DOM and the VS (P < .001). The students in general took 1.3 times longer than the residents to perform the accuracy test, irrespective of the magnification device used. The DOM and the VS required on average 1.9 and 2.8 times longer compared with loupes, respectively. Most participants reported a preference for the DOM with regard to visualization and ease of use. Comments also suggested that the VS has value in diagnosis and magnification in endodontics. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the findings from this study, the DOM stands out as the leading magnification tool in endodontics. However, the VS has potential in endodontic procedures and might be used as an adjunct to other visualization aids.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare a dental operating microscope (DOM) with a high-resolution videoscope (VS) in terms of depth of field (DOF), resolution, and effect on fine motor skills. METHODS: Two observers used test targets to measure the resolution and DOF of the DOM and the VS. In addition, 18 participants (12 dental students and 6 endodontic residents) performed an accuracy test on a manikin head using DOM, VS, or loupes. Each participant completed a posttest survey. RESULTS: The 3 magnifications of the DOM had higher resolutions and DOF (resolution: 32, 40.3, and 50.8 line pairs/mm; DOF: 15, 10, and 6 mm) than the VS (resolution: 20.1 line pairs/mm; DOF: 5 mm). Accuracy testing showed the DOM produced better results than the VS for both resident and student groups (P < .001); however, the VS was not significantly different than loupes. The residents performed better than the students using the DOM and the VS (P < .001). The students in general took 1.3 times longer than the residents to perform the accuracy test, irrespective of the magnification device used. The DOM and the VS required on average 1.9 and 2.8 times longer compared with loupes, respectively. Most participants reported a preference for the DOM with regard to visualization and ease of use. Comments also suggested that the VS has value in diagnosis and magnification in endodontics. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the findings from this study, the DOM stands out as the leading magnification tool in endodontics. However, the VS has potential in endodontic procedures and might be used as an adjunct to other visualization aids.
Authors: Amir Azarpazhooh; Anibal R Diogenes; Ashraf F Fouad; Gerald N Glickman; Anil Kishen; Linda Levin; Robert S Roda; Christine M Sedgley; Franklin R Tay; Kenneth M Hargreaves Journal: J Endod Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 4.171