Delaying Intraoral Radiographs during the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Conundrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background . The COVID‐19 pandemic has made dentists very assiduous about cross‐infection during dental treatment, thereby delaying dental radiographs for treatment. However, patients needing dental emergency treatment in the ongoing pandemic require relevant intra/extraoral dental radiography for adequate diagnosis and treatment planning. Methods . This article is aimed at adding to the hot debate: Is delay for intraoral radiographs justified or a possible proxy? As a narrative review, it provides an insight into the reasons for delaying intra‐oral dental radiographs during in the pandemic and options of the nontraditional radiographic techniques available until the pandemic subsides. Discussion and Conclusion . Cross‐contamination concerns through respiratory droplets grow while using intraoral film holders that stimulate gag reflex, coughing, saliva secretion, and if proper disinfection protocols are not applied. Since the patients’ acquiring emergency dental treatment cannot be neglected, the return‐to‐work guidelines by the health regulatory bodies urge to prioritize extraoral radiographic imaging techniques to curb the infection, offering the best diagnostic efficacy. The dental professionals can consider cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and sectional dental panoramic radiographs (SDPRs), followed by a risk assessment for COVID‐19, a safer modality in reducing cross‐contamination and assuring an innocuous environment for both patient and coworkers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".