Filter active —
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
80.4%
Perceive as marker of professionalism
64.5%
Positive effect on time efficiency
70.6%
Actually use magnification clinically
16.0%
Awareness vs. actual use
80.4% aware
19.6%
16% use
84% do not
A 64.4 pp gap between awareness and actual clinical use — the central finding of this paper.
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?
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
Perceived benefitPerceived 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
83.8%
General dentists
78.7%
Specialists
72.7%
Postgraduate students
53.2%
Undergraduates
45.1%
All four groups
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
Highlight this study
| Study | Setting | N | Use rate | Cost barrier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abubader et al. (this study) | University of Jordan | 802 | 16.0% | 78.3% |
| Alhazzazi et al. (2017) | King Abdulaziz Univ., KSA | 454 | 21.4% | — |
| Aboalshamat et al. (2020) | Jeddah colleges, KSA | Mixed | 12.3% | 73.3% |
| Farook et al. (2013) | UK dental trainees | Mixed | Loupe use surveyed | — |
This study is the largest single-institution sample (N = 802) in the literature and the first from Jordan.