The teaching of Class I and II restorations in primary molars: a survey of North American dental schools.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to obtain an overview of materials and restoratives techniques taught for Class I and Class II restorations in primary molars in different pediatric dentistry departments in North America. METHODS: A form with response alternatives was mailed to 63 dental schools in the United States and Canada. The forms were addressed to the chairman/undergraduate program director of the department of pediatric dentistry. Questions regarding the restorative materials taught, indications and contraindications for the use of tooth-colored materials and the type of cavity preparation indicated for those materials were among the topics assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of the dental schools responded to the survey. Amalgam continues to be the material of choice for Class I and II restorations in primary molars, although hybrid composites and compomers are gaining some popularity. When tooth-colored materials were indicated, the slot-type of cavity preparation was the preferred one. CONCLUSIONS: The diversity in teaching may reflect uncertainty related to requirements for optimal restorations of primary teeth. Data from dental schools of other countries may be important to obtain to establish universally accepted criteria and standards for restorative techniques of primary teeth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".