MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177862426

EAPD guidelines for the use of pit and fissure sealants.

2004· article· en· W2177862426 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Welbury, Magne Raadal, N. Α. Lygidakis

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2240.141

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations126
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207