Removal, replacement and placement of amalgam restorations by Ontario dentists in 2002.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the patterns of removal, replacement and placement of amalgam restorations by Ontario dentists. METHODS: A structured self-administered postal survey was sent to dentists randomly selected from the list of all dentists licensed to practise dentistry in Ontario. The questionnaire sought information on the numbers of 1-, 2-, 3- and > or = 4-surfaced amalgam restorations and core amalgam build-ups that each dentist removed, replaced and placed during a 7-day period. RESULTS: A total of 878 (44%) of 1,994 dentists responded to the survey. Most dentists (82%) who returned completed questionnaires (n = 837) had removed, replaced or placed at least one amalgam restoration during the 7-day period. Most respondents (90%) were general practitioners; respondents practised for a mean of 45.7 weeks each year and had practised for a mean of 20.1 years. On average, each dentist removed 8.91 (standard deviation [SD] 17.32) amalgam restorations during the 7-day period. However, the mean number of new amalgam restorations placed was just 6.64 (SD 18.88): 2.99 (SD 8.74) new restorations in previously unrestored teeth and 3.65 (SD 11.40) replacements of amalgam restorations removed from previously restored teeth. For the year 2002, it was estimated that the 6,915 dentists registered to practise in Ontario had removed 2,855,178 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2,484,566-3,225,790) amalgam restorations. Overall, the dentists placed 2,112,800 (95% CI 1,682,307-2,543,292) amalgam restorations; 1,163,665 (95% CI 919,204-1,408,126) to replace amalgams in previously restored teeth and 949,135 (95% CI 763,103-1,135,166) as new amalgam restorations. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of old amalgam restorations by Ontario dentists exceeds current levels of placement and replacement of amalgam restorations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".