MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029196319 · doi:10.1177/2380084420930690

Parents’ Views on Silver Diamine Fluoride to Manage Early Childhood Caries

2020· article· en· W3029196319 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJDR Clinical & Translational Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsEarly childhood cariesMedicineDentistryQualitative researchOral health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) as a nonsurgical caries management product is growing. Evidence suggests that SDF is very successful in arresting caries. However, a common concern with SDF treatment is the unaesthetic black staining. The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine parents' views following their children's treatment with SDF to manage severe early childhood caries (ECC). METHOD: Parents were interviewed as part of a mixed-method study of SDF to arrest severe ECC. Children with caries lesions in primary teeth were treated with 2 applications of 38% SDF, followed by fluoride varnish. Semistructured in-person and phone interviews were conducted with 19 parents of children in the study. Data were transcribed verbatim and manually coded and uploaded to NVivo 12 for further coding analysis. RESULTS: None of the parents had previously heard about SDF, and they learned about it from the study dentist. Although parents trusted the dentist's information on SDF, they welcomed additional evidence, especially relating to product safety and effectiveness. Some parents were minimally concerned with the black staining caused by SDF treatment. It was more important that SDF arrested caries progression, minimized pain and sensitivity, and prevented dental infection. However, some parents expressed concerns related to the unaesthetic black staining. Interestingly, many parents indicated that their children were not overly concerned with the black staining. A majority of parents said that they would recommend the treatment to others. CONCLUSION: This is the first qualitative study involving parents of children who were treated with SDF. Most parents were accepting of SDF as a nonsurgical treatment to arrest caries and minimize dentinal sensitivity secondary to caries, although some expressed concern about the black staining in anterior teeth. It is important to adequately inform parents of the negative aesthetic consequences and obtain informed consent before treatment. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: This qualitative study revealed that many parents of children with severe ECC are accepting of SDF as a nonrestorative caries management option, despite the black staining of caries lesions. Dental professionals need to be aware of these parental concerns and obtain written informed consent prior to treatment. Parents also requested more information and resources on SDF on its benefits, effectiveness, and any associated risks.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.277
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it