Evidence‐based dentistry for planning restorative treatments: barriers and potential solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) can help provide the best treatment option for every patient, however, its implementation in restorative dentistry is very limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the barriers preventing the implementation of EBD among dental undergraduate and graduate students in Montreal, and explore possible solutions to overcome these barriers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted by means of a paper format self-administrated questionnaire distributed among dental students. The survey assessed the barriers and potential solutions for implementation of an evidence-based practice. RESULTS: Sixty-one students completed the questionnaire. Forty-one percent of respondents found evidence-based literature to be the most reliable source of information for restorative treatment planning, however, only 16% used it. They considered that finding reliable information was difficult and they sometimes encountered conflicting information when consulting different sources. Dental students had positive attitudes towards the need for better access to evidence-based literature to assist learning and decision making in restorative treatment planning and to improve treatment outcomes. Even for dentists trained in EBD, online searching takes too much time, and even though it can provide information of better quality than personal intuition, it might not be enough to identify the best available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Even though dental students are aware of the importance of EBD in restorative dentistry they rarely apply the concept, mainly due to time constraints. For this reason, implementation of EBD would probably require faster access to evidence-based knowledge.
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 | 0.028 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".