Maryland dental hygienists' knowledge, opinions and practices regarding dental caries prevention and early detection.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess Maryland dental hygienists' knowledge, practices and opinions regarding dental caries prevention and early detection. METHODS: A 30 item survey was mailed to 1,258 Maryland dental hygienists. Two follow-up mailings and email reminders were sent. RESULTS: The response rate was 43% (n=540). Nearly all respondents were female (98%), and 58% practiced in solo settings. Knowledge and certainty of knowledge were moderate: sealants are needed regardless of topical fluoride use (55% certain, 40% less certain), newly erupted permanent molars are the best candidates for sealants (54%, 36%) and professionally applied fluorides are desirable in areas without fluoridated water (55%, 36%). Fewer were certain that incipient lesions can be remineralized before cavitation (23%, 69%), and dilute, frequently administered fluorides are more effective in caries prevention than concentrated, less frequently administered fluorides (6%, 24%). Opinions regarding effectiveness of protocols for 2 age groups from 6 months to 6 years, the challenges of early childhood caries (ECC), prevention practices regarding sealant and topical fluoride applications varied widely. Eighty-nine percent reported routinely assessing dental caries risk factors of child patients and 90% were interested in continuing education courses. There were no significant differences between different types of practice settings, year of graduation, race/ethnicity or gender. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of recommended guidelines for fluoride and sealant application support clinical decision-making and self-care counseling. Misinformation and lack of understanding of current research and recommendations identify a need for educational interventions in undergraduate dental hygiene programs and through continuing education for practicing hygienists.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".