Carious lesion management in children and adolescents by Australian dentists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of carious lesions in children and adolescents can have lifelong implications for the patient. The aim of this study was to assess the decision-making process of dentists when managing carious lesions in children and adolescents. METHODS: Approximately, 11 000 dentists listed as members of the Australian Dental Association Inc. (ADA) and Australian and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry (ANZSPD) were emailed a link in April 2017 to a 19-question survey delivered by SurveyMonkey™. RESULTS: In this study, 887 responses were received. In 'enamel-limited' carious lesions, dentists intervened most frequently in primary tooth approximal (365, 41.1%), followed by permanent tooth occlusal (295, 33.3%) and approximal (244, 27.5%), and primary tooth occlusal (203, 22.9%) surface carious lesions. Age, university of graduation, practicing state, decade of graduation and frequency of treatment of children between 6 and 15 years were significant demographic factors influencing the restorative threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Australian dentists reported significant variation in their management of approximal and occlusal carious lesions in both primary and permanent teeth. A substantial proportion of respondents would intervene surgically on non-cavitated enamel-limited lesions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".