MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2416589579

Effectiveness of various modes of computerized delivery of local anesthesia in primary maxillary molars.

2006· article· en· W2416589579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Malka Ashkenazi, Sigalit Blumer

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMolarSedationBuccal administrationAnesthesiaDentistryLocal anesthesiaInfiltration (HVAC)Population
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of infiltration and intrasulcular injection, delivered by a computerized delivery system (CDS), to primary maxillary molars. METHODS: The study population consisted of 178 children (2-14 years old) who received local infiltration (buccal and palatal) or intrasulcular injection to primary maxillary molars with the use of a CDS. Behavior was managed using: (1) behavioral management techniques; (2) N2O inhalation; or (3) sedation. Measured dependent variables included the: (1) child's subjective perception of well-being before and immediately after anesthesia (scale = 0-100); (2) child's pain behavior during anesthesia, as measured by Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario pain scale (CHEOPS; range = 4-13); and (3) effectiveness of anesthesia during dental treatment. RESULTS: Low stress levels were shown for most children before and immediately after anesthesia (range = 12-23). The CHEOPS rating for pain-distractive behavior associated with palatal and buccal infiltration and intrasulcular anesthesia by CDS was similar (6.0 +/- 1.9, 5.8 +/- 1.7, and 5.9 +/- 1.6, respectively). Children treated under sedation, compared to behavioral management techniques, showed higher CHEOPS scores (P = .004). The effectiveness of anesthesia using a CDS (infiltration and intrasulcular) had a downward trend, but was not significantly different for restoration (91%), pulpotomy and preformed crowns (79%), or extraction (74%; mean = 86%). There was no significant difference between infiltration and intrasulcular effectiveness or for age, gender, or tooth location (primary maxillary first vs second molars). CONCLUSIONS: CDS caused low levels of stress and pain reaction after palatal infiltration equal to that for buccal infiltration. All procedures achieved anesthesia effectiveness (86%), with no differences between primary maxillary first and second molars.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques→French-language works237,207→