The Influence of Magnification on Endodontic Therapy in Undergraduate Students: A Narrative Review

Abstract

This literature review aims to evaluate the influence of magnification devices, such as loupes and microscopes, on the performance and learning outcomes of undergraduate dental students in endodontic therapy. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between 2016 and 2024. The search included keywords such as “magnification,” “endodontic therapy,” “undergraduate students,” and “dental education.” Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles and clinical and preclinical studies addressing magnification in endodontic training. Data were extracted, analyzed, and synthesized to assess the impact of magnification on students' technical performance, learning, skill acquisition, confidence, and educational implications. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. The review findings indicate that the use of magnification significantly improved performance in endodontic procedures, enhancing success rates and the quality of work. Students also reported increased confidence when using magnification. Language bias where only English-language studies were included, restricting the search to the past 10 years, variability in study designs, and outcome measures may have limited the comparability of findings. The evidence suggests that magnification significantly enhances undergraduate students' performance and confidence in endodontic therapy. Integrating magnification devices into endodontic training programs is likely to improve student outcomes. Dental schools should consider incorporating magnification tools into their endodontic curricula to improve student competency and confidence. Further research should explore optimal magnification modalities for different endodontic procedures and assess the long-term impact of magnification training on clinical practice.

 

MissingLinkText

Keywords

dental magnification - endodontics - root canal therapy - dental students - teaching

Introduction

The use of magnification devices has become essential in endodontic treatment.[1] Additionally, it is thought that integrating magnification devices into undergraduate education is necessary to increase students' confidence and competence in performing root canal treatments.[2]

Magnification tools like dental loupes and microscopes have grown in importance in dentistry over the past few decades. A safe and efficient method of enhancing the results of challenging endodontic procedures is the application of magnification in conjunction with lighting.[3] [4]

Although some studies suggest that the type of magnification device used may have minimal effects on treatment outcomes,[5] others highlight the benefits of magnification in improving the accuracy and quality of dental work.[6]

Magnification is currently seen as a crucial element of both general dentistry and expert endodontic practice (American Association of Endodontists, 2012). The British Endodontic Society Teachers of Endodontology Group provided new data on the influence of dental operating microscopes (DOMs) on endodontic treatments in providing enhanced illumination and magnification. However, integrating DOMs into general dentistry practice and undergraduate endodontic education has practical, financial, and ergonomic concerns.[7]

As a result, using dental loupes with illumination is advised in this position statement as a minimal requirement for nonsurgical endodontics performed at the undergraduate level.[7] Dental loupes have been demonstrated to be beneficial in assisting in the identification of root canal anatomy, detecting cavities, and promoting conservative cavity preparation.[3] [7] [8] [9]

Despite the fact that endodontic teaching leaders use magnification in their own clinical practice, the study found that this did not translate into the design and delivery of training and the expectation that undergraduate students will use magnification.[10] This is illogical, inconsistent, and not in line with best clinical practice for tutors to use magnification in their own practice and not be included in undergraduate training.[7]

Endodontic therapy is a fundamental component of dental education, requiring students to develop high levels of precision and technical proficiency. However, undergraduate dental students often face significant challenges in mastering these skills, particularly in tasks such as locating canal orifices, negotiating curved canals, and achieving optimal obturation. While magnification tools such as dental loupes and operating microscopes have been widely adopted in clinical practice, their impact on the learning and performance of undergraduate students remains poorly understood. Existing studies on this topic are fragmented, with limited synthesis of evidence regarding the effectiveness of magnification in improving technical performance, skill acquisition, and student confidence.

The key knowledge gaps include insufficient knowledge of the effects of magnification on technical performance at various student curriculum levels, insufficient investigation of the effects of magnification devices on learning curves and the acquisition of fine motor skills, brief discussion of suggested curriculum design, training timelines, and institutional obstacles as well as lack of standardized recommendations regarding the best timings and techniques to use magnification in undergraduate instruction.

This narrative review aims to address this gap by comprehensively examining the existing literature on the use of magnification in endodontic therapy among undergraduate dental students, with the goal of evaluating the effect of magnification on student technical performance, learning and skill acquisition, student confidence and educational implications, informing evidence-based teaching practices, and identifying areas for future research.

This review tests the null hypothesis that magnification use does not significantly improve technical performance, learning curves, or confidence compared with conventional methods. By synthesizing data (2016–2024), we aim to identify best practices for curricular integration, propose policy solutions for resource-limited settings, and prioritize future research on long-term skill retention.

 

MissingLinkText

Methods

Search Strategy

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify relevant studies addressing the impact of magnification on the performance of undergraduate dental students performing endodontic therapy. The following steps were taken to ensure a thorough and reproducible search process:

• Databases searched: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched to identify peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, and theses/dissertations.

• MeSH keywords and search terms: the following MeSH keywords were used to refine the search: (Magnification OR loupe OR “dental operating microscope”) AND (endodontics OR “root canal therapy” OR “root canal therapies” OR endodontology) AND (student OR undergraduate OR “dental student” OR teach*). Truncation (*) and phrase searching (“ ”) were employed to capture variations in terminology.

• Timeframe: studies published within the past 9 years (from 2016 to 2024) were included to ensure relevance to current practices and technologies. This window captures the most recent evidence on incorporation of magnification in undergraduate endodontic teaching, ensuring the reflection of current practices. Pre-2016 studies were excluded to maintain focus on contemporary curricula.

• Language: only studies published in English were included. Studies in other languages were excluded unless translation was feasible and relevant.

Focus question: in accordance with the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes framework, the following research question was formulated: population: undergraduate dental students. Intervention: use of magnification tools during endodontic therapy. Comparison: undergraduate dental students performing endodontic therapy without magnification aids. Outcomes: technical performance in endodontic therapy, learning and skill acquisition, confidence levels, and educational implications.

 

MissingLinkText

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion criteria: studies were included based on the following criteria:

• Population: studies involving undergraduate dental students performing endodontic therapy; studies focusing on the use of magnification tools (e.g., dental loupes, microscopes) in endodontic procedures.

• Intervention/exposure: studies evaluating the use of magnification devices during endodontic therapy; studies comparing performance outcomes with and without magnification.

• Outcomes: studies reporting measurable performance outcomes, such as accuracy, precision, success rates, or efficiency in endodontic procedures; studies assessing learning curves, skill acquisition, or confidence levels related to magnification use; studies assessing inclusion of magnification in dental curricula.

• Study design: randomized controlled studies, cross-sectional surveys, observational studies, or comparative studies; peer-reviewed journal articles or theses/dissertations.

• Language: studies published in English.

• Timeframe: studies published from 2016 to 2024.

Exclusion criteria: studies were excluded based on the following criteria:

• Population: studies involving postgraduate students or experienced clinicians; studies focusing on nonendodontic procedures (e.g., restorative dentistry, oral surgery).

• Intervention/exposure: studies that did not specifically address the use of magnification tools in endodontic therapy.

• Outcomes: studies that did not report measurable performance outcomes related to endodontic therapy; studies with unclear or irrelevant outcome measures.

• Study design: case reports, editorials, opinion pieces, or narrative reviews without original data; studies with insufficient methodological rigor (e.g., lack of control groups, small sample sizes without justification).

• Language: studies published in languages other than English.

• Timeframe: studies published prior to 2016.

 

MissingLinkText

Study Selection

Studies were selected according to the PRISMA flow diagram ([Fig. 1]). Initially, 237 records were identified through database searching (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar). After removing 25 duplicates, 13 ineligible studies by automation criteria and 21 for other reasons, 178 titles/abstracts were screened. Of these, 128 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 50 studies ultimately included. Excluded studies (n = [38]) were documented with reasons within the exclusion criteria.

Fig. 1 Prisma flow diagram.

 

MissingLinkText

Data Extraction and Analysis

• Screening process: titles and abstracts of identified studies were screened for relevance based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility, and data were extracted using a standardized form with exclusions documented (e.g., “wrong population” or “no magnification focus”). Discrepancies were resolved by re-evaluating the source material against eligibility criteria.

• Data extraction: the following data were extracted from included studies: study characteristics (author, year, country, study design); population details (sample size, demographic information); intervention details (type of magnification tool); comparison groups; outcome measures (performance metrics, learning curves, confidence levels); and key findings and conclusions.

  A standardized, pilot-tested extraction form was used to collect:

  • Study characteristics: author, year, country, design, funding sources.

  • Population: undergraduate dental student level (e.g., preclinical/clinical), institution type.

  • Intervention: magnification tool (e.g., loupes, microscopes), duration of use, training protocol.

  • Comparison: unaided vision.

  • Outcomes: objective metrics (performance metrics, learning curves, confidence levels) and subjective measures (e.g., student surveys).

  • Key findings: statistical significance, effect sizes (if reported), and author conclusions. The form was piloted on three randomly selected studies and refined for clarity. Extracted data were cross-verified against original articles to ensure accuracy.

• Quality assessment: the methodological quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials or the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

• Synthesis: a narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize the findings. Studies were grouped by themes, such as technical performance, learning and skill acquisition, student confidence, and educational implications.

 

MissingLinkText

Limitations

• Language bias: only English-language studies were included, which may have excluded relevant studies published in other languages.

• Timeframe: restricting the search to the past 10 years may have excluded older but relevant studies.

• Heterogeneity: variability in study designs, outcome measures, and magnification tools may limit the comparability of findings.

 

MissingLinkText

Critical Appraisal of Included Studies

To evaluate the methodological rigor of the selected studies, a qualitative assessment was conducted focusing on sample size, outcome measures, and potential biases. Given the heterogeneity in experimental approaches (e.g., varying magnification devices, skill assessment methods), a narrative synthesis was deemed more appropriate than a meta-analysis. The following limitations were noted across studies:

Small sample sizes or unavailability of sample sizes in some trials (e.g., Al Agha [22] sample size 20 students; Wajngarten et al [21], n = 24; Alobaid et al [34] studies 15 out of 21 dental schools in Saudi Arabia due to lack of response from remaining schools; reducing statistical power ([Table 1]).

Table 1 Critical appraisal of included studies

Study	Design	Sample size	Key strengths	Key weaknesses
Alhazzazi et al (2016)[6]	Cross-sectional survey study	651	Identifies practical barriers, regional baseline data (establishes Saudi Arabian context for comparison with global studies)	Single-institution bias, temporal concerns published 2017 (may not reflect current curricula), nonvalidated instrument (survey tool not psychometrically tested)
Al Raisi et al (2019)[21]	Cross-sectional survey study	16 UK dental schools	Comprehensive national data (94% response rate from all UK dental schools), curriculum-specific insights	Faculty perspective only (lack of student perspective), limited clinical correlation (reports what is taught but not effectiveness)
Al Agha (2020)[17]	Randomized controlled trial	20	RCT, objective measurement	Small sample size, limited sample diversity (one institution)
Brown et al (2020)[10]	Cross-sectional survey study	15/18 UK and Ireland course leads in UK and Ireland	Magnification-specific focus, comparative value (expands on Al Raisi et al [2019] with Ireland-inclusive data)	Faculty-only perspective (lack of student perspective), limited contextual data (does not evaluate magnification's effect on procedural quality)
Braga et al (2021)[15]	Randomized controlled trial	93	RCT, blinded assessment, standardized simulation, objective outcome measures, focused on undergraduates	Simulated nonclinical setting, short-term evaluation, potential Hawthorne effect, limited sample diversity (one institution), loupe variables uncontrolled (different magnifications)
Wajngarten et al (2021)[18]	RCT (crossover)	92	High-level evidence (crossover RCT), blinding of assessors, statistical rigor	Simulated tasks (lack the complexity of actual clinical procedures), single-institution bias, loupe familiarity variability
Wajngarten et al (2021)[16]	Qualitative study	24	Educational insights	Small sample size, single-institution bias
da Costa Ferreira et al (2021)[23]	Cross-sectional survey study	19/54 dental schools	Technology-specific data (quantifies loupe adoption rates, identifies barriers)	Superficial technology analysis (groups all magnification devices together, does not differentiate loupes vs. microscopes)
Segura-Egea et al (2021)[22]	Cross-sectional survey study	22/23 Spanish dental schools	Detailed curriculum analysis, comparative value (allows direct comparison with UK studies [Brown et al 2020, Al Raisi et al 2019])	Faculty perspective only (lack of student perspective), limited clinical correlation (reports what is taught but not effective)
Alobaid et al (2022)[24]	Cross-sectional survey study	15/21 Saudi Arabia dental colleges	Detailed curriculum assessment, comparative value Allows comparison with similar studies (e.g., Brown et al, 2020—UK, Segura-Egea et al, 2021—Spain)	Self-reporting bias (relies on subjective perceptions rather than objective skill assessments), limited clinical correlation (reports availability of magnification but not effectiveness in training)
Algahtani et al (2023)[25]	Cross-sectional survey study	25/26 Saudi Arabia dental schools	Robust sample size and diversity (covers multiple institutions across Saudi Arabia, reducing single-center bias)	Nonrandom sampling (potential selection bias (respondents may be more tech-savvy or motivated, does not account for nonrespondents' experiences)
Alsughier et al (2024)[20]	Cross-sectional survey study	368	Comprehensive population sampling, regional relevance,	Self-report bias (subjective perceptions), lack of objective measures (does not correlate perceptions with clinical performance data)

Abbreviation: RCT, randomized controlled trial.

 

MissingLinkText

Risk of Bias Assessment

The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using:

• ROB-2 for randomized trials.[15]

• Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

• JBI Checklist for qualitative studies ([Table 2]).[16]

Table 2 Risk of bias/quality Assessment

Study	Design	Tool	Key bias domains	Overall bias
Alhazzazi et al (2016)[6]	Cross-sectional survey	NOS	Self-report bias; Response rate; Sample size	High risk
Al Raisi et al (2019)[21]	Cross-sectional survey	NOS	100% response rate; Faculty-only; Clarity	Unclear
Brown et al (2020)[10]	Cross-sectional survey	NOS	100% response rate; Faculty-only bias; Clear objectives	Unclear
Al Agha (2020)[17]	Randomized controlled trial	NOS	No control group; Follow-up; Outcome assessment	High risk
Braga et al (2021)[15]	Randomized controlled trial	ROB-2	Randomization; Blinding (performance); Selective reporting	Some concerns
Wajngarten et al (2021)[18]	Randomized controlled trial	ROB-2	Randomization; Blinding; Selective reporting	Low risk
Wajngarten et al (2021)[16]	Qualitative	JBI	Participant alignment; Researcher bias; Ethical rigor	Low risk
Segura-Egea et al (2021)[22]	Cross-sectional survey	NOS	Pre-COVID data; Multi-center; No outcomes	High risk
da Costa Ferreira et al (2021)[23]	Cross-sectional survey	NOS	Single-state; Convenience sampling; Objective measures	Unclear
Alobaid et al (2022)[24]	Cross-sectional survey	NOS	Dual-perspective; Nonrandom; No skill assessment	High risk
Algahtani et al (2023)[25]	Cross-sectional survey	NOS	Large sample; Recall bias; No longitudinal data	Unclear
Alsughier et al (2024)[20]	Cross-sectional survey	NOS	Nonvalidated tool; Sampling; Statistical analysis	Unclear

Note:  = Low risk,  = Some concerns/unclear,  = High risk.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Results

A total of 12 studies were included in this review. The studies involved undergraduate dental students performing endodontic therapy with and without magnification tools.

Technical Performance

Magnification is widely regarded as a significant advancement in dentistry, with many dental schools encouraging its use during training.[6] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Braga et al[15] compared students using 2.5× magnification loupes with those using unaided vision. The students were evaluated on the positioning of the canal, internal form taper, internal outline, access opening, and access cavity size and shape. According to Braga et al, students who used magnifying loupes had a noticeably greater pass percentage than those who did not.

Wajngarten et al[16] evaluated the opinions of dental students at Stony Brook University regarding the use of 2.5× magnification. It was revealed that students had adjusted well to the loupes.

Al Agha[17] demonstrated that the amount of tooth tissue removed during an endodontic access cavity procedure by inexperienced undergraduate students appears to be unaffected by magnification (loupes).

Findings related to technical performance are summarized in [Table 3].

Table 3 Findings related to technical performance

Study	Target group	Methodology	Findings
Al Agha (2020)[17]	Undergraduate dental students, Liverpool, UK	Evaluation of the amount of tooth tissue removal following endodontic access preparation using analytical balance, an optical scanner, and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)	The group using magnifying loupes and the unaided vision group did not significantly differ in terms of access cavity size.
Braga et al (2021)[15]	Third-year dental students	Evaluated the impact of the use of 2.5× dental loupes for third-year dental students in simulated endodontics assessments compared with those using no magnification.	The pass rate was higher for the students who used loupes in endodontic group (92.3% vs. 75.9%, p = 0.038)
Wajngarten et al (2021)[18]	Second-year dental students, StonyBrook School of Dental Medicine, United States	Semi-structured interviews exploring the students' perspectives of wearing dental loupes during their preclinical activities.	Most students stated that magnification enhanced the quality of their preclinical activities.

 

MissingLinkText

Learning and Skill Acquisition

Wajngarten et al[16] reported that students in Stony Brook School of Dental Medicine, United States adjusted well to Galilean loupes, though fine motor tasks initially took longer without magnification.

Wajngarten et al[18] assessed the magnification effect on fine motor skills of all undergraduate students in the fifth and final year of the dentistry program at the School of Dentistry of São Paulo State University, using the Dental Manual Dexterity Assessment developed by Neves et al,[19] which showed improved fine motor skills with magnification, despite slower initial performance.

Findings related to learning and skill acquisition are summarized in [Table 4].

Table 4 Findings related to learning and skill acquisition

Study	Target group	Methodology	Findings
Wajngarten et al (2021)[16]	Second-year dental students, Stony Brook School of Dental Medicine, United States	Semi-structured interviews exploring the students' perspectives of wearing dental loupes during their preclinical activities.	Students have adjusted well to the loupes.
Wajngarten et al (2021)[18]	Fifth-year undergraduate dental students, Sau Paulo, Brazil.	A laboratory-based experimental study. The dependent variables were real motor skills, perceived motor skills, and time required to complete the fine motor skills test. The independent variable was the use of a magnification system under four conditions. For each condition, the Dental Manual Dexterity Assessment was performed.	The results show that the magnification systems evaluated positively affected students' real fine motor skills, regardless of the magnifying devices type used.

 

MissingLinkText

Student Confidence

Alsughier et al[20] assessed the impact and advantages of using magnification equipment in endodontic treatment, through a cross-sectional study performed among Saudi Arabian endodontists, undergraduate and postgraduate students, where a significant percentage of participants in Saudi Arabia dental schools (30.98%) stated that employing magnification equipment had multiple benefits (increased quality of clinical work, reduced musculoskeletal strain, high confidence in clinical procedures, better trust from the patients), demonstrating a thorough understanding of their benefits. However, a lower percentage (8.70%) indicated greater confidence in clinical procedures.

 

MissingLinkText

Educational Implications

Alhazzazi et al[6] stated that 78.1% of dental students and residents in King Abdulaziz University, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia did not use magnification during dental procedures. However, 81.8% agreed that dental magnification could enhance the accuracy and quality of their dental work, and 91.6% thought it would be useful in endodontics. Of the 21.9% that used magnification, dental loupes were mostly used, 55.9%. In addition, 59.4% of the participants believed that using dental magnification should be introduced by faculty beginning in Year 1 of dental school.

Al Raisi et al[21] assessed undergraduate endodontic education in dental schools in the United Kingdom, concluding that magnification including both loupes and DOM was used during preclinical and clinical endodontic training in 33% of United Kingdom dental schools. While 27% of schools utilized loupes for clinical training, only 20% used them for preclinical training. Twenty percent of them did not use magnification devices.

Brown et al[10] examined the use of magnification in undergraduate endodontic instruction in United Kingdom and Irish dentistry schools and reported that 53% of course leads in United Kingdom and Ireland dental schools stated that the official endodontic curriculum includes magnification, where 87% of respondents said that it should be included in curricula. In 87% of colleges, it was not expected that undergraduates would use loupes. Nonetheless, students were urged to utilize magnification during endodontic procedures in all universities. Fifty percent of respondents said that magnification promotion was performed in later years. DOMs are offered for preclinical training in 53% of schools. They are also available chairside in teaching clinics in all schools.

Segura-Egea et al[22] assessed the state of endodontic education at the undergraduate level in Spanish dental schools and found that no magnification devices were used in 90% of Spanish dental schools.

da Costa Ferreira et al[23] investigated how much modern endodontic technology was incorporated into undergraduate dentistry programs in a state in southeast Brazil and reported that 70% of Brazil dental schools had never included microscopes in their undergraduate curricula.

Alobaid et al[24] assessed the undergraduate endodontic curriculum's delivery and content in Saudi Arabian dental schools and concluded that 33% of dental schools in Saudi Arabia teach preclinical students the use of magnifying devices. During clinical years, 53% provide training in magnification equipment.

On the other hand, Algahtani et al[25] reported that 84% of dentistry schools in Saudi Arbia did not utilize magnification.

Moreover, Alsughier et al[20] stated that 45% of undergraduate, postgraduate students, and endodontists in Saudi Arabia use a magnifying device (fourth-year students: 21%, fifth-year students: 28%, and postgraduate programs: 52%). All endodontists surveyed used tools for magnification. Seventy-four percent of fourth-year students said surgical microscopes were the most useful. Fifth-year students' preferences were between surgical microscopes (69%) and loupes with LED lights (28%).

Findings related to educational implications are summarized in [Table 5].

Table 5 Findings related to educational implications

Study	Target group	Methodology	Findings
Alhazzazi et al (2016)[6]	Dental students and residents in King Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia	An e-questionnaire was formulated then sent to dental students and residents (n = 651). The questionnaire included questions that assessed both awareness and attitude toward using dental magnification.	78.1% did not use magnification during dental procedures. However, 81.8% agreed that dental magnification could enhance the accuracy and quality of their dental work. 91.6% thought it would be useful in endodontics. Of the 21.9% that used magnification, dental loupes were mostly used, 55.9%. 59.4% of the participants believed that using dental magnification should be introduced by faculty beginning in Year 1 of dental school.
Al Raisi et al (2019)[21]	UK dental schools	An online survey on undergraduate endodontics education sent via email to the undergraduate endodontic program leads in the 16 UK dental schools.	Magnification including both loupes and dental operating microscope was used during preclinical and clinical endodontic training in 33% of schools. Twenty per cent of schools used loupes in preclinical training while 27% employed loupes in clinical training.
Brown et al (2020)[10]	UK and Ireland dental schools.	An electronic questionnaire was distributed to teaching leads in undergraduate endodontics in all UK and Ireland dental schools.	53% of course leads stated that the official endodontic curriculum includes magnification. 87% of respondents said that it should be included in curricula. In 87% of colleges, it was not expected that undergraduates would use loupes. Nonetheless, students were urged to utilize magnification during endodontic procedures in all universities. Fifty percent of respondents said that magnification promotion was performed in later years. DOMs are offered for preclinical training in 53% of schools. They are available in teaching clinics in all schools.
Segura-Egea et al (2021)[22]	Spanish dental schools	An online survey sent via email to the undergraduate endodontic program leads in the 23 Spanish dental schools.	No magnification devices were used in 90% of schools.
da Costa Ferreira et al (2021)[23]	Brazil dental schools	An online questionnaire was sent to 54 dental schools in Minas Gerais.	70% of the universities stated that they had never included microscopes in their undergraduate curricula.
Alobaid et al (2022)[24]	Saudi Arabian dental schools	A needs assessment survey was distributed among the deans of all the dental colleges in Saudi Arabia.	33% of dental schools teach preclinical students the use of magnifying devices. During clinical years, 53% provide training in magnification equipment.
Algahtani et al (2023)[25]	Saudi dentistry schools	An online questionnaire answered by the endodontic undergraduate programdirectors of dental school in Saudi Arabia.	84% of dentistry schools did not utilize magnification.
Alsughier et al (2024)[20]	Undergraduate, postgraduate students, and endodontists in Saudi Arabia	Survey administered to undergraduate, postgraduate students, and endodontists in Saudi Arabia.	45% use a magnifying device. Fourth-year students (21%), fifth-year students (28%), and postgraduate programs (52%). All endodontists surveyed used tools for magnification. 74% of fourth-year students said surgical microscopes were the most useful. Fifth-year students' preferences were between surgical microscopes (69%) and loupes with LED lights (28%).

Abbreviation: DOM, dental operating microscope.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Discussion

This review highlights the critical role of magnification tools in enhancing technical performance, skill acquisition, and learning experience of undergraduate dental students during endodontic training. However, these benefits only materialize after completing the necessary training and developing the necessary abilities.[26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Technical Performance

Braga et al[15] reported that students who used magnifying loupes had a noticeably greater pass percentage than those who did not. Studies by Leknius and Geissberger[13] and Maggio et al[14] found that dental magnification loupes significantly improved student performance during preclinical dental education and were regarded as an effective adjunct by the students who used them. This is in line with the performance difference between the two groups. The study by Brown et al[10] that examined the use of magnification in undergraduate endodontics instruction in the United Kingdom and Ireland is likewise in line with Braga et al's[15] findings. Those findings were aligned with a study conducted by Buhrley et al,[3] identifying the second mesio-buccal canal (MB2) to which the use of a microscope or at the very least dental loupes was required. For the microscope, dental loupes, and no magnification groups, the corresponding MB2 detection results were 71.1, 62.5, and 17.2%, respectively. This further highlight how crucial it is to use magnification to locate the MB2 canals during endodontic therapy to improve treatment results.

Wajngarten et al[16] evaluated the opinions of dental students regarding the use 2.5× magnification, considering its usage instructions, adaptation process, benefits, or drawbacks. Because the operational field and, by extension, dental structures are larger, most students also stated that magnification enhanced the quality of their preclinical activities.

On the other hand, Al Agha[17] demonstrated that the amount of tooth tissue removed during an endodontic access cavity procedure by inexperienced undergraduate students appears to be unaffected by magnification (loupes). This could be explained by the fact that students were not adequately trained on the use of loupes, that the loupes were of a standardized type, and that they were more concerned with the quality of the access cavity than the quantity of tissues removed. The group using magnifying loupes and the unaided vision group did not significantly differ in terms of access cavity size.

• Consistent benefits: most studies (e.g., Braga et al,[15] Wajngarten et al[16]) reported improved precision and pass rates with magnification, aligning with evidence from Leknius and Geissberger[13] and Buhrley et al[3] on MB2 canal detection.

• Notable exception: Al Agha[17] found no significant difference in tooth structure removal, potentially due to inadequate training. This discrepancy underscores the importance of structured training protocols to realize magnification's benefits.

 

MissingLinkText

Learning and Skill Acquisition

Regardless of the type of magnifying device employed, the results demonstrate that the examined magnification systems had a favorable impact on students' actual fine motor skills. The tests conducted with the naked eye were significantly faster than those conducted with loupes when the amount of time needed to complete the Dental Manual Dexterity Assessment was taken into consideration. These findings support the theory that students completed the test faster because they felt safer with unassisted vision. The use of loupes throughout the professional training phase may be significant, according to statistics on students' assessments of their motor abilities and the amount of time needed to finish the test. Maillet et al,[29] who stress that the use of magnifying glasses should start as soon as feasible in undergraduate studies, support this finding. This is because an adaptation period is an essential component of the learning process for the development of fine motor control skills. However, the professional's visual acuity increases, and the amount of time needed to complete clinical procedures lowers as they become more accustomed to using magnification devices.[31]

The learning curve associated with magnification was evident. While initial task duration increased,[18] the development of fine motor skills improved over time. Additionally, device type influenced adaptability; Galilean systems were more beginner-friendly.[31] [32] The nature of the Galilean system may be responsible for this adaptability.[16]

Fitts and Posner's three-stage model of motor learning[33] helps explain this skill development process. Magnification improves clarity and focus on anatomical components, which is important for learners in the cognitive stage who mostly rely on visual cues and teaching. Students start honing their skills through practice as they advance into the associative stage, when magnification facilitates more precise tactile–visual coordination. When students reach the autonomous stage, they can carry out processes with little conscious effort, and magnification becomes a seamless part of their workflow.

• Adaptation period: Wajngarten et al[16] demonstrated that students adjusted well to loupes, but their fine motor tasks took longer initially,[18] a finding corroborated by Maillet et al.[29] This supports integrating magnification early in curricula to allow skill maturation.

• Device-specific effects: Galilean loupes[31] were associated with better adaptability, suggesting that device selection impacts learning curves.

 

MissingLinkText

Student Confidence

Despite perceived benefits, confidence levels did not uniformly rise with magnification use.[20] This may reflect limited clinical exposure or insufficient emphasis during early education, again pointing to the importance of timing and training.

 

MissingLinkText

Educational Implications

Students should “have knowledge of the benefits and use of magnification and enhanced illumination in endodontic practice,” according to the European Society of Endodontology's (ESE) Undergraduate Curriculum Guidelines for Endodontology.[34] According to Cowpe et al,[35] the Association for Dental Education in Europe embraced the words used in the ESE standards in their Profession and Competencies of the Graduating European Dentist.

Alhazzazi et al[6] assessed the awareness and attitude toward using dental magnification among dental students and residents at King Abdulaziz University, Faculty of Dentistry, Saudi Arabia. Most participants thought that early in dental school, instructors should encourage the use of dental magnification. Furthermore, they thought that the fourth year was the ideal time to present their idea. The institution where the study was conducted grants a Bachelor of Dental Medicine and Surgery in 7 years. However, students do not begin treating patients until their fourth year. This could be the cause of students' apparent belief that the fourth year would be the ideal time to introduce the idea of dental magnifications.

Brown et al[10] also examined the use of magnification in undergraduate endodontic instruction in United Kingdom and Irish dentistry schools and determined the variables that can affect adoption rates. Half of course leads who were asked about their course curricula said that the official endodontic curriculum included magnification. Undergraduate students had access to utilize DOMs at any school. Even though they are accessible, they are not used to their full potential. They may be used for demonstration purposes, but not necessarily used by students during completing treatment. This was reported to be caused in part by supervisors' discomfort or lack of training with DOMs, the extra time needed to teach while using magnification, and possibly safety concerns related to changing students' routines. Moreover, course instructors were asked to think about the possible obstacles to using magnification in undergraduate endodontics instruction. Cost and employee training were mentioned by several respondents as obstacles.

Segura-Egea et al[22] assessed the state of endodontic education at the undergraduate level in Spanish dental schools. The vast majority of dental schools in Spain did not utilize magnification devices. Jiménez-Sánchez et al[36] analyzed the use of contemporary technologies and materials in undergraduate endodontic teaching in Spain as well, and reached the same percentages of dental schools in Spain utilizing magnification as Segura-Egea et al[22] On the other hand, 80% of United Kingdom dental schools incorporated magnification in their teaching.[21]

da Costa Ferreira et al[23] investigated how much modern endodontic technology was incorporated into undergraduate dentistry programs in a state in southeast Brazil. By viewing the root anatomy under magnification, the operating microscope enables the endodontist to perform access cavity preparation, chemical–mechanical preparation, retreatment, perforation treatment, instrument removal, and apical surgery under better conditions. Nevertheless, more than two-thirds of Brazil dental school did not incorporate DOMs into their curricula due to their unavailability.

The integration of magnification in undergraduate endodontic education within Saudi Arabia appears to be inconsistent and evolving. While Alobaid et al[24] reported that a modest proportion of dental schools (33% preclinical, 53% clinical) incorporated magnification training, Algahtani et al[25] found a much lower overall utilization rate, with 84% of schools reportedly not using magnification tools at all. This discrepancy highlights significant variation in institutional practices, possibly reflecting differences in curriculum emphasis, resource availability, or faculty training.

Despite these institutional gaps, there is a clear trend of increased magnification use among students as they progress through their training. Alsughier et al[20] noted that more advanced students (fifth year and postgraduate levels) reported higher usage rates, and all surveyed endodontists used magnification routinely. This progression suggests that exposure to and familiarity with magnification tools particularly loupes with LED lights and surgical microscopes grow over time, likely due to increased clinical demands and greater awareness of the tools' benefits. Preferences also appeared to evolve, with fourth-year students favoring surgical microscopes, while fifth-year students showed a more balanced preference between microscopes and LED-lit loupes.

• Global disparities: while 80% of United Kingdom schools incorporated magnification (Al Raisi et al[21]), 90% of Spanish schools (Segura-Egea et al[22]) and 84% of Saudi schools (Algahtani et al[25]) did not, primarily due to cost and training gaps.

• Student readiness: Alhazzazi et al[6] found students advocated for early exposure (Year 1), but clinical adoption peaked in later years (Alsughier et al[20]), reflecting a mismatch between training and clinical demand.

Structured implementation techniques should be taken to guarantee the successful integration of magnification in undergraduate endodontic teaching. A methodical, scaffolded approach is advised. Initially, preclinical exposure can start in simulation laboratories where students are exposed to simple magnifying devices, like LED-lit Galilean loupes. Wajngarten et al[37] support the idea that this phase should involve instructor-led demonstrations and guided practice to help students become familiar with ergonomics, focus adjustment, and field lighting.

Next, magnification should be formally incorporated into clinical skills training during the early clinical years, along with performance evaluations to monitor students' development of skills. Teitelbaum et al[38] highlighted the significance of faculty modeling and coaching to ensure student adoption.

Embedding these steps into a competency-based curriculum with clearly defined outcomes related to magnification proficiency could standardize training across institutions.

 

MissingLinkText

Interpretation and Discrepancies

• Conflicting results: the contrast between Braga et al's[15] positive outcomes and Al Agha's[17] null findings may stem from:

  • Task complexity: magnification's impact is more pronounced in intricate tasks (e.g., MB2 detection) than basic access cavities.

  • Training duration: studies with longer adaptation periods (e.g., Wajngarten et al[18]) showed better outcomes.

• Curricular and cultural factors: United Kingdom/Ireland reported greater adoption than Spain/Brazil, highlighting equity issues in dental education. Regarding Saudi Arabia, its lower magnification adoption (33–53% of schools; Alobaid et al[24]; Algahtani et al[25]) compared with the United Kingdom (80%; Al Raisi et al[21]) likely reflects institutional priorities and curricular traditions rather than resource limitations.

 

MissingLinkText

Implications for Dental Education

• Curriculum integration:

  • Early exposure: introduce loupes in preclinical years to mitigate adaptation delays (Maillet et al[29]).

  • Standardized training: develop competency-based modules (e.g., ESE guidelines) to ensure consistent skill development.

• Resource allocation:

  • Cost-effective solutions: prioritize Galilean loupes (lower cost, easier adaptation) in resource-limited settings.

  • Institutional partnerships: collaborate with manufacturers to subsidize devices, as seen in United Kingdom schools (Brown et al[10]).

• Future research:

  • Longitudinal studies: track skill retention post-graduation to validate educational outcomes.

  • Comparative trials: evaluate loupes versus microscopes for specific endodontic tasks.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conclusion

This review underscores the significant benefits of magnification tools, such as loupes and DOMs, in enhancing undergraduate dental students' technical performance, skill development, and confidence during endodontic therapy. Magnification improves visual accuracy, treatment quality, and fine motor skills, particularly when students receive proper training and early exposure.

The following standardized training protocols should be implemented by dental schools to optimize these advantages:

• Early exposure to magnification devices during preclinical simulation training.

• Progressive skill development linked to motor learning principles (beginning with Galilean loupes before progressing to surgical microscopes).

• Faculty development programs to guarantee instructors are skilled in instructing with magnification tools.

Global integration of magnification in dentistry education is possible despite obstacles such as cost, inadequate faculty training, and inconsistent implementation across institutions. To get beyond resource constraints, institutions should look for funding methods, shared resource models, and inter-school cooperation.

Future studies should examine the following topics: cost-benefit assessments of applying magnification at different training phases; longitudinal outcomes comparing students taught with and without magnification over several clinical years.

• Educational impact studies evaluating the effects of early magnification use on ergonomics and long-term clinical proficiency.

Dental education around the world can progress toward the standardized and efficient use of magnification tools to improve clinical competency and patient care outcomes by filling in these research gaps and using structured training methodologies.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Author Contributions

The single author performed the literature research, reported the findings, and performed manuscript preparation, manuscript editing, and manuscript review.

Ethical Considerations

This review utilized publicly available data from published studies, so ethical approval was not required. Plagiarism was avoided through careful paraphrasing and citation.

Data Availability Statement

The data resulting from the literature search can be made available upon a suitable request directed at the corresponding author. This ensures that the research process remains transparent and accessible for further study or verification.

• References

• 1 AlEid AA. Magnification aids in endodontics: a review. Egypt Dent J 2019; 65: 1477-1485
• 2 Davey J, Bryant ST, Dummer PM. The confidence of undergraduate dental students when performing root canal treatment and their perception of the quality of endodontic education. Eur J Dent Educ 2015; 19 (04) 229-234
• 3 Buhrley LJ, Barrows MJ, BeGole EA, Wenckus CS. Effect of magnification on locating the MB2 canal in maxillary molars. J Endod 2002; 28 (04) 324-327
• 4 Cappeli A, Duarte MA, Vivan RR, Camargo JM, Quintella F. New resources to mitigate failure in root canal treatment and retreatment. Endod Pract US 2018; 15: 1-10
• 5 Setzer FC, Kohli MR, Shah SB, Karabucak B, Kim S. Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature--Part 2: comparison of endodontic microsurgical techniques with and without the use of higher magnification. J Endod 2012; 38 (01) 1-10
• 6 Alhazzazi TY, Alzebiani NA, Alotaibi SK. et al. Awareness and attitude toward using dental magnification among dental students and residents at King Abdulaziz University, Faculty of Dentistry. BMC Oral Health 2016; 17 (01) 21
• 7 McLean W, Qualtrough AJE. Teaching of magnification in the undergraduate curriculum: a position statement from the British Endodontic Society Teachers of Endodontology Group. Int Endod J 2025; 58 (01) 2-5
• 8 Forgie AH, Pine CM, Nugent ZN, Pitts NB. The effect of magnification on clinical caries diagnosis. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 1028
• 9 Forgie AH, Pine CM, Pitts NB. Restoration removal with and without the aid of magnification. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28 (04) 309-313
• 10 Brown MG, Qualtrough AJE, McLean W. Magnification in undergraduate endodontic teaching in the UK and Ireland: a survey of teaching leads in Endodontology. Int Endod J 2020; 53 (04) 553-561
• 11 Carr GB, Murgel CA. The use of the operating microscope in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2010; 54 (02) 191-214
• 12 Narula K, Kundabala M, Shetty N, Shenoy R. Evaluation of tooth preparations for Class II cavities using magnification loupes among dental interns and final year BDS students in preclinical laboratory. J Conserv Dent 2015; 18 (04) 284-287
• 13 Leknius C, Geissberger M. The effect of magnification on the performance of fixed prosthodontic procedures. J Calif Dent Assoc 1995; 23 (12) 66-70
• 14 Maggio MP, Villegas H, Blatz MB. The effect of magnification loupes on the performance of preclinical dental students. Quintessence Int 2011; 42 (01) 45-55
• 15 Braga T, Robb N, Love RM. et al. The impact of the use of magnifying dental loupes on the performance of undergraduate dental students undertaking simulated dental procedures. J Dent Educ 2021; 85 (03) 418-426
• 16 Wajngarten D, Botta AC, Garcia PPNS. Magnification loupes in dentistry: a qualitative study of dental students' perspectives. Eur J Dent Educ 2021; 25 (02) 305-309
• 17 Al Agha M. The Effect of Dental Loupes Magnification on the Amount of Tooth Structure Removed during Endodontic Access Cavity Procedures [dissertation]. Liverpool: University of Liverpool; 2020
• 18 Wajngarten D, Pazos JM, Menegazzo VP, Novo JPD, Garcia PPNS. Magnification effect on fine motor skills of dental students. PLoS One 2021; 16 (11) e0259768
• 19 Neves TC, Menegazzo VP, Novo JPD, Wajngarten D, Garcia PPNS. Dexterity testing in dental students. JAMMR 2020; 32 (07) 127-135
• 20 Alsughier Z, Albahouth RA, Albuhayji AA. et al. Effect of magnification devices used for endodontic treatment and their benefits among undergraduate, postgraduate students and endodontists in Saudi Arabia. Int J Med Dev Ctries 2024; 8: 1623-1630
• 21 Al Raisi H, Dummer PMH, Vianna ME. How is Endodontics taught? A survey to evaluate undergraduate endodontic teaching in dental schools within the United Kingdom. Int Endod J 2019; 52 (07) 1077-1085
• 22 Segura-Egea JJ, Zarza-Rebollo A, Jiménez-Sánchez MC, Cabanillas-Balsera D, Areal-Quecuty V, Martín-González J. Evaluation of undergraduate endodontic teaching in dental schools within Spain. Int Endod J 2021; 54 (03) 454-463
• 23 da Costa Ferreira I, da Costa Ferreira G, Tavares WLF, de Souza Côrtes MI, Braga T, Amaral RR. Use of technology in endodontics by undergraduate dental students in a south-eastern state of Brazil. Eur J Dent Educ 2021; 25 (02) 225-231
• 24 Alobaid MA, Bin Hassan SA, Alfarhan AH, Ali S, Hameed MS, Syed S. A critical evaluation of the undergraduate endodontic teaching in dental colleges of Saudi Arabia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19 (23) 15534
• 25 Algahtani FN, Barakat RM, Alqarni LM, Alqabbani AF, Alkadi MF, Almohareb RA. Undergraduate endodontic training and its relation to contemporary practice: multicenter cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia. Int J Clin Pract 2023; 2023: 7484570
• 26 Del Fabbro M, Taschieri S, Lodi G, Banfi G, Weinstein RL. Magnification devices for endodontic therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (03) CD005969
• 27 Christensen GJ. Magnification in dentistry: useful tool or another gimmick?. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134 (12) 1647-1650
• 28 Mallikarjun SA, Devi PR, Naik AR, Tiwari S. Magnification in dental practice: how useful is it?. J Health Res Rev 2015; 2: 39-44
• 29 Maillet JP, Millar AM, Burke JM, Maillet MA, Maillet WA, Neish NR. Effect of magnification loupes on dental hygiene student posture. J Dent Educ 2008; 72 (01) 33-44
• 30 Low JF, Dom TNM, Baharin SA. Magnification in endodontics: a review of its application and acceptance among dental practitioners. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (04) 610-616
• 31 Eichenberger M, Perrin P, Neuhaus KW, Bringolf U, Lussi A. Influence of loupes and age on the near visual acuity of practicing dentists. J Biomed Opt 2011; 16 (03) 035003
• 32 Bowers DJ, Glickman GN, Solomon ES, He J. Magnification's effect on endodontic fine motor skills. J Endod 2010; 36 (07) 1135-1138
• 33 Fitts PM, Posner MI. Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1967
• 34 De Moor R, Hülsmann M, Kirkevang LL, Tanalp J, Whitworth J. Undergraduate curriculum guidelines for endodontology. Int Endod J 2013; 46 (12) 1105-1114
• 35 Cowpe J, Plasschaert A, Harzer W, Vinkka-Puhakka H, Walmsley AD. Profile and competences for the graduating European dentist - update 2009. Eur J Dent Educ 2010; 14 (04) 193-202
• 36 Jiménez-Sánchez MC, Segura-Egea JJ, Zarza-Rebollo A. et al. Use of contemporary technologies and new materials in undergraduate Endodontics teaching. J Clin Exp Dent 2021; 13 (04) e383-e388
• 37 Wajngarten D, Garcia PPNS, Arias DN. et al. Influence of dental magnification systems on student performance in preclinical endodontics. J Dent Educ 2019; 83 (04) 442-449
• 38 Teitelbaum AP, Smith RA, Dunning DG. Role modeling of dental magnification use in clinical practice: impact on dental students' attitudes and use. J Dent Educ 2016; 80 (12) 1444-1451

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
01. September 2025