Filter active — Clear
About this Dashboard
This dashboard presents findings from a peer-reviewed cross-sectional survey examining awareness and attitudes toward dental magnification among 802 undergraduate and postgraduate dental students at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Jordan. Data were collected June 2024 – July 2025. All charts are interactive and filterable by academic level.
Published Citation
Abu Zaghlan R, Abubader A, Al Awadi J, Al Dandashi J. Dental Students' Awareness and Attitudes Toward Dental Magnification at the University of Jordan. European Journal of Dental Education. 2026.
doi:10.1111/eje.70316
Dashboard & data analysis: Dr. Ahmad Abubader , University of Jordan
Total Respondents
802
All educational levels
Use Magnification
16.0%
128 of 802 students
Believe enhances accuracy
80.4%
Agree or strongly agree
Consider too expensive
78.3%
Top cited barrier
Want earlier integration
84.0%
Into dental curriculum
Attended CE Course
20.7%
166 of 802 students
The Knowledge–Practice Gap
Disconnect between awareness and clinical adoption — updates with filter
Believe magnification enhances accuracy
Perceive as marker of professionalism
Positive effect on time efficiency
Actually use magnification clinically
Awareness vs. actual use
A 64.4 pp gap between awareness and actual clinical use — a key finding of this study.
Sample by educational level N = 802 across five groups
Gender distribution Updates with level filter
Female 64.3% Male 35.7%
Overall use rate
16.0%
χ² = 17.558, p = 0.002
Postgrad use rate
34.6%
Highest among all levels
3rd Year use rate
12.0%
Lowest among all levels
Intern CE attendance
14.5%
Lowest despite most clinical
Magnification use by educational level Significant increase with training level (p = 0.002)
Postgraduate students use magnification at 2.9× the rate of 3rd-year students.
CE course attendance by educational level No significant difference overall (p = 0.246)
Interns have the lowest CE attendance (14.5%) despite being the most clinically active pre-graduation group.
Use rate by gender
Male 22.0% vs Female 12.6% — updates with filter
Male (n=286) — 22.0% Female (n=516) — 12.6%
Device type among current users (n = 128)
Updates with level filter — users only
Loupes 84.4% Mag. glasses 12.5% Microscopes 3.1%
If device is unavailable — what would users do? (n = 128)
Updates with level filter — among users only
57% would continue treating regardless — magnification has not yet become indispensable in clinical decision-making.
Enhances accuracy (mean)
4.18/5
% agree: 80.4%
Too expensive (mean)
4.13/5
% agree: 78.3%
Positive time effect
70.6%
Agree or strongly agree
Lack of knowledge barrier
62.2%
Second biggest barrier
All attitude items — % agreeing or strongly agreeing (Likert 4–5)
Hover any bar for mean score and p-value · Filter updates all bars · Blue = benefit · Red = barrier
Benefit items — mean Likert scores Updates with level filter
Barrier items — mean Likert scores Updates with level filter
Vision worsening endorsed by only 22.2% , vs 44.2% in Alhazzazi et al. (2017) — likely reflecting improved awareness over time.
Want earlier integration
84.0%
Of all 802 students
Top preferred year
40.5%
3rd year (all students)
Endodontics most useful
65.5%
Of specialty responses
General dentists need it
83.8%
Who needs magnification most
Preferred year for curriculum integration Updates with level filter — see how each group answered
3rd year (40.5%) maps onto when clinical operative training begins at UJ.
Specialty perceived to benefit most Updates with level filter
Which professional groups most need magnification? (multiple-choice) Hover each card for context · n = 802
72.7%
Postgraduate students
Cost barrier
78.3%
Devices too expensive
Knowledge barrier
62.2%
Lack of knowledge
Prefer loupes
72.2%
Future device preference
Top suggestion
48.4%
Reduce device cost
Suggestions to increase magnification uptake Updates with level filter
Reducing cost mirrors the 78.3% who cited expense as a barrier. Shared loupe programs implied.
Preferred magnification device for future practice Updates with level filter
Loupes' lower cost and shorter learning curve make them the practical entry point for curriculum integration.
Contextual comparison — regional & international literature Toggle to highlight this study's result
Study Setting N Use rate Cost barrier
Abu Zaghlan et al., 2026 (this study) University of Jordan 802 78.3% Alhazzazi et al. (2017) King Abdulaziz Univ., KSA 454 — Aboalshamat et al. (2020) Jeddah colleges, KSA Mixed 73.3% Farook et al. (2013) UK dental trainees Mixed Loupe use surveyed —
This study surveyed 802 students at a single institution in Jordan.