Knowledge and attitude of dental postgraduate students towards oral and peri-oral piercing in Davanagere city: A cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral and perioral piercing when performed under unhygienic conditions, can cause certain complications. Hence, a study was conducted in dental colleges of Davanagere city among postgraduate students with the aim to assess their knowledge and attitude towards oral and peri-oral piercing.Methods: Across-sectional survey involved 212 dental postgraduate students of dental colleges in Davanagere city who consented to participate. A pretested, validated, self-administered questionnaire containing 15 multiple-choice items assessing the postgraduate students’ knowledge and attitude towards oral and peri-oral piercing practices was used for data collection. Data was presented in the form of frequencies and percentages.Results: Participants had fair knowledge regarding oral and perioral piercing. Majority of participants (75%) felt oral and peri-oral piercing practices as a sign of style /fashion statement. Around 45-50% felt tongue piercing and nose piercing (66%) as most prevalent type among oral and perioral piercing practices and canine was the most preferred tooth for piercing (43%). Majority (55%) felt that piercing practices were performed by unlicensed people. Many (79%) were aware of complications associated with piercing and suggested removal of pierced metal in such conditions (58%). Around 76.7% said they preferred Cosmetic dentist for piercing and 94% felt that dentists with oral and perioral piercing strongly influence the perception of their patients towards oral piercing.Conclusion: Dental postgraduates had fair knowledge regarding oral and peri-oral piercing practice and its possible complications. However, the attitude towards the practice which is highly prevalent in the society was affirmative and positive among postgraduates which is a cause of concern.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".