The Benefit of the Operating Microscope for Access Cavity Preparation by Undergraduate Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although studies show the operating microscope (OM) provides benefits for endodontists, the benefit to undergraduates has not been evaluated as completely as for specialists. The purpose of this study was to determine whether using the OM would improve students' performance in endodontic access cavity preparation and canal identification. Thirty-six dental students prepared access cavities and located canals in extracted maxillary molars, before and after training, which varied according to group. The standard group received a lecture and practice in preparation of access cavities. The microscope group received identical instruction using the OM. The control group received lectures only. All groups received equal content and instruction time (2 hr 20 min). Faculty graded preparations according to a multidimensional 5-point rating scale. Using the OM, the microscope group improved significantly in access cavity preparation (p <0.05) and significantly outperformed both standard and control groups in accuracy of identifying canals (p <0.05).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".