Magnifying loupes versus surgical microscope in endodontic surgery: a four-year retrospective study

A selection of abstracts of clinically relevant papers from other journals. The abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by John R. Radford.

Abstract

The authors report that the outcome of periradicular surgery when carried out with the use of an operating microscope was not superior to that performed with loupes.

Main

Taschieri S, Weinstein T et al. Aust Endod J 2011; doi:10.1111/j.1747-4477.2011.00309.x

In the USA, 90% of endodontists use an operating microscope. The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic appearance after periradicular surgery when carried out using either an operating microscope or magnification loupes. The magnification for the operating microscope was ×8-×20 and ×4.3 for the magnification loupes (with a headlight). The manufacturer(s) or optical configuration(s) of these instruments were not stated. More patients were treated with the use of the surgical microscope (36 patients, 63 teeth) than those treated with magnification loupes (29 patients, 39 teeth). The method of randomisation was not stated. Regardless of magnification device, after 4 years, over 90% of teeth had 'healed'. The data was not interrogated using survival analysis.