MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177862426

EAPD guidelines for the use of pit and fissure sealants.

2004· article· en· W2177862426 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolarDentistryMedicineOrthodontics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-mail: r.welbury@dental.gla.ac.uk composites or compomers, and their polymerisation may be initiated chemically or by light. Several studies reported the effectiveness of second generation chemical initiated FSs. Wendt and Koch [1988] reported, under optimal dental office conditions, 80% complete retention after 8 years and combined partial and 94% complete retention after 10 years. Romcke et al. [1990], in a Canadian study after 10 years reported 41% complete retention and 8% partial retention. Eighty-five per cent of the sealed teeth were caries free after 8-10 years. Simonsen [1987] reported 57% complete retention 10 years after a single FS application and 28% after 15 years [Simonsen, 1991]. After 15 years 74% of surfaces that had been sealed were caries free. Chestnutt et al. [1994] reported on more than 7,000 FSs after 4 years where 57% of the sealed tooth surfaces remained fully sealed, with 18% scored as deficient or failed and 24% completely missing. Of the surfaces originally scored as deficient at baseline 23% were scored as carious compared with 21% of surfaces not sealed. Only 14.4% of the sound/sealed surfaces at baseline became carious. Wendt et al. [2001a] reported 95% complete or partial retention without caries in second permanent molars after 15 years and 87% complete or partial retention without caries in first permanent molars after 20 years. In a different study the same authors [Wendt et al., 2001b] reported that 74% of first permanent molars that had been sealed were caries free after 15 years. Ripa [1993] reviewed numerous studies that have been carried out comparing the retention rates between third and first and/or second generation FS. The results indicated that the performance levels for chemical initiated FS and visible light photoinitiated FS were similar within an observation period of up to 5 years. However, in three comparison studies of longer Introduction Tooth surfaces with pits and fissures are particularly vulnerable to caries development [Manton and Messer, 1995]. Ripa [1973] observed that although the occlusal surfaces represented only 12.5% of the total surfaces of the permanent dentition, they accounted for almost 50% of the caries in school children. This can be explained by the morphological complexity of these surfaces, which favours plaque accumulation to the extent that the enamel does not receive the same level of caries protection from fluoride (F) as does smooth surface enamel [Ripa, 1973; Bohannan, 1983; Ripa, 1990]. The plaque accumulation and caries susceptibility are greatest during the eruption of the molars [Carvalho et al., 1989], and caries susceptible individuals are therefore vulnerable to early initiation and fast progression of caries in these sites. Brown et al. [1996] and Kaste et al. [1996] showed that in fluoridated communities over 90% of dental caries is exclusively pit and fissure caries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.120 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it