MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216755437 · doi:10.1111/jerd.12839

Effect of assessor's sex on visual color matching in dentistry: A systematic review of the literature

2021· review· en· W3216755437 on OpenAlexaff
Kristýna Hynková, Simran Kaur Sarao, Iva Voborná, Liran Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical appraisalMedicineMEDLINEProtocol (science)PopulationMatching (statistics)DentistrySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialSignificant differenceScopusAlternative medicinePathologyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate systematically the influence of sex of dental professionals on their capability for visual color matching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020205393). PICOS question was develop based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). Eligibility criteria included cross section studies, randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that compared the effect of sex on the visual color matching process. Five electronic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Medline, and SCOPUS) and additional literature were screened independently by two researchers in July 2020. Clinical studies evaluating visual color matching skills of dental professionals were included. Studies that did not compare the difference between sexes were excluded. Duplicate articles were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and studies were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Data were collected and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. RESULTS: A total of 1192 articles were screened from which 132 full text articles were analyzed and 37 finally included in the systematic review. Most of the studies evaluated the color matching abilities of dental students in vitro with shade tabs or extracted teeth. Out of the 37 articles included, 25 reported no significant difference in shade matching abilities between the sexes. Of the 12 studies that found a significant difference, 11 reported that females had better scores in shade matching exercises. For all studies a low risk of bias was revealed for most of the domains. CONCLUSIONS: While the non-homogeneity of the settings and methods in the included studies make it impossible to construct aggregate statistic, this systematic review suggests that the sex is unlikely to be a critical factor influencing color matching abilities. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggest that sex of dental professionals does not play a critical factor in matching satisfactory color of future dental restoration with surrounding teeth.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistrySame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207