What do we know about portable dental services? A scoping review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delivering dental care to patients in their home or residential institutions is known as "portable dentistry". The demand for portable dental services is on the rise, but dentists remain reluctant to adopt portable practices. OBJECTIVES: To explore the literature on portable dental services and understand (a) the process of planning and delivering portable dental services and (b) the benefits and challenges of portable dentistry for service providers and patients. METHODS: A systematic scoping search was conducted. We retrieved 3994 documents, 28 of which were included in the final synthesis. Three authors read the papers and conducted thematic content analyses independently. RESULTS: We present a synthesis of the literature and proposed a model of portable dentistry containing three levels with the patient is at the centre surrounded by concentric rings representing the dentist (dental team) and society. At each of these levels, our model is further subdivided into three components: 1) organisation of the service; 2) arrival and set-up of the service; and 3) delivery of the service. In addition, each level includes 1) human factors, which are related either to the dental professional or the patient; 2) non-human factors, which refer to either the equipment or the physical environment; and 3) financial factors, which are related to cost and remuneration. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a model for portable dentistry that dentists and dental educators interested in this practice should find useful.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 it