Dental hygienists' perception of preparation and use for ultrasonic instrumentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ultrasonic scaling technology has evolved dramatically providing greater clinical utility subgingivally including instrumentation of light deposits and biofilm disruption. It is unknown whether dental hygiene curriculum has kept pace with the progression and reflects current applications. The first part of this two-part study aimed to determine new dental hygiene graduates' use and perceptions of preparedness in ultrasonic instrumentation. Part 2 investigates ultrasonic curriculum from the programme director perspective and will be reported on in a subsequent paper. METHOD: Part 1 of the study surveys recently graduated Canadian dental hygienists about their use and perceptions of preparedness with ultrasonic instruments through an electronic questionnaire developed for this study. RESULTS: Participants reported using ultrasonics about half of their instrumentation time predominantly with magnetostrictive technology. Use focussed on heavier deposits with straight, slim inserts. Subjects were generally satisfied with ultrasonic education and felt reasonably well prepared in using ultrasonics. Higher levels of perceived preparedness were most associated with graduates from the 3-year diploma programme, whereas graduates from 18-month programmes were associated with greater levels of confidence in using ultrasonics. Confidence with ultrasonics did not have an effect on subsequent use - mostly all participants increased use once in practice. An earlier introduction and more practice time in school were both associated with increased feelings of preparation and confidence. CONCLUSIONS: New dental hygiene graduates perceive greater preparedness, confidence and use of ultrasonic instrumentation within a more traditional paradigm. In addition, the results indicate a potential incorrect and/or inappropriate application of current technology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".