A survey on radiographic prescription practices in dental implant assessment among dentists in Kerala, India.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct a survey of the current radiographic prescription practices among implant practitioners in the state of Kerala, India. METHODS: 300 dentists were interviewed by employing a questionnaire which enquired about the radiographic evaluation methods prescribed by practitioners in implant site assessment in their implantology practice. Other reasons for choosing particular imaging modalities were also enquired. The data collected from the survey was analysed using Epi-Info 7.1.3 software. RESULTS: Around 87.33% of the dentists prescribed only OPG for the implant site assessment and only 4.66% ordered Orthopantomograph (OPG) in combination with an Intra Oral Periapical Radiograph (IOPAR) and 4.33% ordered OPG with Computed Tomography (CT). Only 0.02% of the practitioners ordered CT as a single examination and 1% ordered it in conjunction with other modalities. 0.066% individuals ordered IOPAR as the sole imaging modality and none of them ever prescribed conventional or Cone beam computed tomography. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has conclusively proven that most of the dentists prescribe OPG followed by a combination of OPG and Intraoral periapical radiographs in their implant practices. Many of them were not aware and did not follow the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, European Academy of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, European Association of Osseointegration and International Congress of Oral Implantology recommendations regarding cross-sectional imaging.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".