Implant dentistry in the undergraduate dental education program at Dalhousie University. Part 1: clinical outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcome of treatments performed by students in the undergraduate implant elective program at Dalhousie University. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients treated with dental implants in the undergraduate elective program at the Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, between 1994 and 2004 were identified from patient records. Brånemark implants (Nobel Biocare) were placed by experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeons or periodontists using the traditional 2-stage protocol and an intermediate healing period of 3 to 6 months. Undergraduate students in the elective implant program were responsible for the restorative part of the treatment. RESULTS: A total of 166 implants were placed in 95 patients (38 men, 57 women; mean age: 52 years, range: 18 to 84 years). Of the 166 implants, 142 had been restored at the time of the study. Ten of the implants failed: 4 were lost during healing and the remaining 6 were lost after loading, leading to an implant survival rate of 93%. A total of 64 single-implant restorations, 7 multiple-unit fixed restorations, and 33 implant overdentures were fabricated. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the clinical outcome of implant treatments performed by undergraduate students in the implant elective program at Dalhousie University is similar to that reported by experienced clinicians/research teams. Although the implant surgery was performed by an experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeon or periodontist, the student had the main responsibility for treatment planning and performing the prosthodontic procedures. The results also suggest that implant dentistry could be implemented as part of the curriculum in the undergraduate programs of dental schools.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".