An Assessment of Direct Restorative Material Use in Posterior Teeth by American and Canadian Pediatric Dentists: II. Rubber Dam Isolation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess usage, indications, and contraindications for rubber dam isolation (RDI) by pediatric dentists in Canada and the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based, self-administered survey was utilized to collect the opinions of all active pediatric dentist members of the Royal College of Dentists of Canada and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry on the use of direct restorative materials in posterior teeth (n equals 4,648; 19.3 percent response rate). The main survey also included a domain on the RDI utilization and its perceived indications and contraindications. Bivariate and multivariate analyses for RDI usage and its predictor were performed at two-tailed P<0.05. RESULTS: A response rate of 19.3 percent was obtained. Most participants (72.5 percent) reported using RDI "all the time." The material with the lowest usage of RDI was composite (82 percent) in the primary dentition and stainless steel crown (80.7 percent) in the permanent dentition. The three top-noted reasons for not using RDI included decreased trauma to the patient (66.2 percent), being able to prevent soft tissue from interfering without using RDI (55.9 percent), and decreased time for appointments (45.6 percent). CONCLUSION: Rubber dam isolation was valued by the majority of pediatric dentists when restoring primary and permanent dentition for all materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".