Use of Intravenous Sedation in Periodontal Practice: A National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the early 1990s, much of the periodontal profession perceived an upcoming shift in services performed by periodontists as many patients began to expect sedation for periodontal surgery. As a result, in 1993 the American Academy of Periodontology began encouraging postgraduate periodontal programs to train residents in the use of conscious sedation. The purpose of this study is to investigate trends in the training of intravenous (i.v.) sedation in residency and its use in periodontal practice. METHODS: An 18-question survey was mailed to a sample of 1596 active periodontists throughout the United States and Canada. Thirty-seven percent (596) of the surveys were returned. Twenty-two retired periodontists responded and were excluded from the analysis. The data from the remaining 574 surveys were analyzed with a statistical software package. RESULTS: Approximately half (49.8%) of the survey respondents offer i.v. sedation in their practices. Among respondents who completed residency prior to 1996, 42.6% offer i.v. sedation compared with 64.2% of respondents who completed residency in 1996 or later. The number of i.v. sedations performed in residency was moderately correlated with the number of i.v. sedations personally performed in periodontal practice (Spearman r = 0.5169, P <0.0001). The largest percentage of periodontists using i.v. sedation (74.0%) was reported from American Academy of Periodontology District 5 (south central United States), whereas District 7 (New Jersey and New York) reported the lowest usage (15.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of all periodontists provide i.v. sedation, with more recent periodontal graduates more likely to personally offer and administer i.v. sedation services for their patients. Regional differences exist in the use and training of i.v. sedation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".