Survey of Advanced Education in Prosthodontics Directors and Residents on Practices in Esthetic Dentistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the difference between the intended education by advanced education in prosthodontics (AEP) program directors and the perceived education received by AEP residents with respect to concepts of esthetic dentistry. Residents' confidence levels and current practices were also determined based on program level, with first- and second-year residents combined into "junior residents" and third- and fourth-year residents combined into "senior residents." Surveys were distributed to all U.S. and Canadian AEP program directors (N=52) in 2014 and residents (N=393) in 2015. The seven questions asked of directors and 20 asked of residents assessed resident training. The response rate for directors was 59.6% and for residents was 27.3%. Statistically significant results were found between the responding program directors' perceived education on esthetic principles and the responding residents' perceived education. The senior-level residents were more confident in each of the categories than residents at the junior level, although the difference was only significant for selecting porcelain systems to match inherent translucency, transfer of information to the laboratory, and surface staining or characterization. There was a difference between the program directors' intended teaching and the residents' perceptions with regards to bleaching, shade matching, selection of porcelain systems, transfer of information to the laboratory, and surface staining or characterization. The residents' confidence levels were higher at the senior level than those at the junior level in selecting porcelain systems, transfer of information to the laboratory, and staining/characterization. Faculty members in advanced prosthodontics programs may be able to use these findings to improve their residents' education in these areas.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".