Cariology Education in Canadian Dental Schools: Where Are We? Where Do We Need to Go?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to document cariology education across Canadian dental schools. Ten faculty members who supervise cariology education at each of the ten Canadian dental schools were invited to participate in the study in 2016. An adapted version of the European Organization for Caries Research-Association for Dental Education in Europe cariology curriculum group questionnaire was used. Representatives of all ten dental schools completed the questionnaire, for a 100% response rate. In four schools, cariology and restorative dentistry were taught by the same department. Five schools had didactic/laboratory courses focusing primarily on cariology as well as a specific written curriculum. Six schools provided cariology-related hands-on workshops/laboratories before students started working with patients. In teaching cariology, seven institutions included dental hard tissues defects. The following caries detection methods were addressed didactically in cariology education: visual (10/10 total schools), tactile (9/10), International Caries Detection and Assessment System criteria (6/10), caries activity assessment (9/10), radiographic (10/10), and other detection tools (8/10). Seven schools charted activity of carious lesions in clinic. Only one school used the concept of caries risk assessment regularly in clinic. Clinical cariology teaching was carried out mostly by private dentists hired as clinical instructors (7/10) and faculty members involved in didactic cariology education (9/10). Calibration of faculty members for caries detection criteria was reported by only one school. The main concern reported by all institutions was the difficulty of implementing didactic instruction on cariology into clinical training. This study found that contemporary cariology concepts are in the process of being implemented in didactic education across Canadian dental schools, but all schools lacked appropriate integration of cariology education into clinical training. These findings suggest a need for harmonization of evidence-based cariology education in Canada.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".