International endodontic journal · 2013
The impact of loupes and microscopes on vision in endodontics.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Perrin P, Neuhaus K W, Lussi A
Аннотация
AIM: To report on an intraradicular visual test in a simulated clinical setting under different optical conditions.
METHODOLOGY: Miniaturized visual tests with E-optotypes (bar distance from 0.01 to 0.05 mm) were fixed inside the root canal system of an extracted maxillary molar at different locations: at the orifice, a depth of 5 mm and the apex. The tooth was mounted in a phantom head for a simulated clinical setting. Unaided vision was compared with Galilean loupes (2.5× magnification) with integrated light source and an operating microscope (6× magnification). The influence of the dentists' age within two groups was evaluated: <40 years (n = 9) and ≥40 years (n = 15).
RESULTS: Some younger dentists were able to identify the E-optotypes at the orifice, but otherwise, natural vision did not reveal any measurable result. With Galilean loupes, the younger dentists <40 years could see a 0.05 mm structure at the root canal orifice, in contrast to the older group ≥40 years. Only the microscope allowed the observation of structures inside the root canal, independent of age.
CONCLUSION: Unaided vision and Galilean loupes with an integrated light source could not provide any measurable vision inside the root canal, but younger dentists <40 years could detect with Galilean loupes a canal orifice corresponding to the tip of the smallest endodontic instruments. Dentists over 40 years of age were dependent on the microscope to inspect the root canal system.
METHODOLOGY: Miniaturized visual tests with E-optotypes (bar distance from 0.01 to 0.05 mm) were fixed inside the root canal system of an extracted maxillary molar at different locations: at the orifice, a depth of 5 mm and the apex. The tooth was mounted in a phantom head for a simulated clinical setting. Unaided vision was compared with Galilean loupes (2.5× magnification) with integrated light source and an operating microscope (6× magnification). The influence of the dentists' age within two groups was evaluated: <40 years (n = 9) and ≥40 years (n = 15).
RESULTS: Some younger dentists were able to identify the E-optotypes at the orifice, but otherwise, natural vision did not reveal any measurable result. With Galilean loupes, the younger dentists <40 years could see a 0.05 mm structure at the root canal orifice, in contrast to the older group ≥40 years. Only the microscope allowed the observation of structures inside the root canal, independent of age.
CONCLUSION: Unaided vision and Galilean loupes with an integrated light source could not provide any measurable vision inside the root canal, but younger dentists <40 years could detect with Galilean loupes a canal orifice corresponding to the tip of the smallest endodontic instruments. Dentists over 40 years of age were dependent on the microscope to inspect the root canal system.