Trends in the Placement of Posterior Composites in Dental Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to review trends in the teaching of posterior composites in the United States, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom over the last fifteen years. The authors compared the results of surveys of the teaching of posterior composites performed in 1989, 1997, and 2004-05. Historical and contemporary international trends were investigated. The amount of clinical and didactic teaching of posterior composites has increased over the past fifteen years. From a time over fifteen years ago, when very few dental students placed posterior composites in dental school, approximately one-third of posterior plastic restorations placed by U.S., Irish, and UK dental students are now composite, with the corresponding finding for Canadian dental schools being approximately 50 percent. Some variations were noted between dental schools in terms of the teaching of contraindications to placement as well as lining and basing techniques. There was some inappropriate teaching of techniques, in particular, in relation to the use of transparent matrix bands and light transmitting wedges. There was also evidence of limited student exposure to newer forms of technology, notably LED curing light units. There have been clear increases in the teaching of posterior composites in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland in recent years; however, the proportion of posterior composite restorations placed by dental students relative to dental amalgams does not yet match the typical situation in contemporary clinical practice. Dental schools have a responsibility to ensure that their curricula are evidence-based to best prepare their students to meet the needs and expectations of their future patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".