The Periodontal Examination Profile of General Dentists in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this cross-sectional study we investigate the extent to which general dentists in Nova Scotia carry out periodontal examinations of their patients. In addition, factors that significantly influence performing a periodontal examination by a dentist are identified. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was mailed to all 443 general dentists practicing in the province of Nova Scotia in the summer of 2009. The survey included questions on demographics and the various components of the periodontal examination. Simple and multiple logistic regression tests were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: Of the 279 (63%) responses received, 272 (61%) responses were eligible to be included in the analyses. The majority of responders (94.8%) reported performing periodontal examinations of their patients. However, only 37.8% and 43.3% of the dentists reported performing full-mouth and selective probing depth measurements, respectively. Dentists who practiced in urban locations (P = 0.05), dentists whose practices were situated <5 km from a periodontist (P = 0.08), and dentists who planned to take a continuing education course in periodontal plastic surgery in the next 2 years (P = 0.07) were more likely to perform a periodontal examination. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of dentists in our study report performing periodontal examinations of their patients, only a small portion report recording complete probing depth measurements or using appropriate radiographs in their examinations. These practices could lead to an underestimation of diagnosis and treatment of periodontal disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".