Dental Therapists as New Oral Health Practitioners: Increasing Access for Underserved Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of dental therapy in the U.S. grew from a desire to find a workforce solution for increasing access to oral health care. Worldwide, the research that supports the value of dental therapy is considerable. Introduction of educational programs in the U.S. drew on the experiences of programs in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, with Alaska tribal communities introducing dental health aide therapists in 2003 and Minnesota authorizing dental therapy in 2009. Currently, two additional states have authorized dental therapy, and two additional tribal communities are pursuing the use of dental therapists. In all cases, the care provided by dental therapists is focused on communities and populations who experience oral health care disparities and have historically had difficulties in accessing care. This article examines the development and implementation of the dental therapy profession in the U.S. An in‐depth look at dental therapy programs in Minnesota and the practice of dental therapy in Minnesota provides insight into the early implementation of this emerging profession. Initial results indicate that the addition of dental therapists to the oral health care team is increasing access to quality oral health care for underserved populations. As evidence of dental therapy's success continues to grow, mid‐level dental workforce legislation is likely to be introduced by oral health advocates in other states. This article was written as part of the project “Advancing Dental Education in the 21 st Century.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".