Canadian dentists' views on the first dental visit for children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Early dental visits set children on an upward trajectory, toward a lifetime of optimal oral health. The purpose of this study was to analyze data from a survey of Canadian dentists to determine their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding first dental visits. Methods: ≤ 0.05. Results: Overall, 3,232 dentists participated. The majority were male (58.5%), general dentists (96.6%), in non-metropolitan areas (50.5%), and practiced for 20.6 ± 12.8 years. The mean age recommended for first visits was 20.4 ± 10.8 months. Only 45.4% of dentists recommended a first visit ≤ 12 months. A majority (59.5%) knew that the correct age recommended for first visits was no later than 12 months. Most dentists who had seen a patient ≤ 12 months before did not typically do so (82.3%). General dentists were 61% less likely to recommend first visits by 12 months (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.91). Dentists in Central Canada (OR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.44, 2.32); dentists who typically saw patients ≤ 12 months (OR = 3.41; 95% CI: 2.41, 4.83); those who echoed the importance of visits by 12 months (OR = 19.3; 95% CI: 8.2, 45.71); dentists with staff that encouraged infant/toddler care (OR = 1.76; 95% CI: 1.34, 2.31); and those who knew official North American recommendations for first visits (OR = 5.28; 95% CI: 4.13, 6.76) were all more likely to recommend first visits by 12 months. Conclusions: A majority of Canadian dentists did not recommend first visits by 12 months of age, despite it being the CDA's official position. Provider characteristics can influence the age that is recommended for first visits. Findings from this study may inform educational campaigns on early childhood oral health targeted toward dentists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".