The yawning gap: Waiting for cariology to germinate whilst periodontology is fruiting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to investigate whether periodontology and cariology receive equal emphasis in dental education at two moments in time, thirteen years apart. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online search was conducted in Nov 2021 of all the dental schools in ten English-language speaking countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia) to identify departments/divisions in the disciplines of periodontology, cariology, and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry. The results were then compared against the findings of a similar investigation that was conducted from July to October 2008. RESULTS: Of the 126 dental schools identified in 2021, information was available for 93 dental schools. Of these 93 schools, only 10 listed departments/divisions/disciplines of cariology, whereas 83 and 86 schools had listed periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively. Despite a doubling of the number of dental schools with a department/division/discipline of cariology from 2008 to 2021, the absolute gap in the number of departments/divisions/disciplines in the other two disciplines compared to cariology had widened during the thirteen years. In 2008, there were 70 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology compared to cariology departments/divisions/disciplines. In 2021, there were 73 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology. Additional information on research output was available for 90 dental schools in 2021, where 30 schools self-identified as undertaking cariology research, whereas 68 and 47 schools undertook research in periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dental education does not give equal emphasis to periodontology and cariology, and the discipline of cariology is grossly neglected.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".