Training and Use of Lasers in Postgraduate Orthodontic Programs in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to determine if orthodontic residents are being trained to use lasers in the postgraduate orthodontic residency programs of the United States and Canada. An anonymous electronic survey was sent to the program director/chair of each of the seventy orthodontic residency programs, and thirty-seven (53 percent) of the programs responded. Of these thirty-seven programs, twenty-eight (76 percent) reported providing patient treatment with lasers in the orthodontic graduate program, eight (22 percent) said they do not provide treatment in the orthodontic graduate program, and one program (3 percent) reported providing laser training but not using lasers on patients. Gingivectomy and canine exposure were reported as the most common procedures that residents perform with a laser, while debonding of orthodontic brackets was the least common procedure performed with a laser. A diode laser was the most common type of laser used. Of the eight programs (22 percent) not offering laser training, four indicated having no plans to begin using lasers or training on their use. The other four indicated that they have plans to incorporate laser use in the future.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".