Attitudes and Knowledge of dentists in Pakistan regarding the use of Dental Amalgam as a restorative material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To assess the attitudes of Pakistani dentists regarding the safe use of amalgam as a restorative material. Study design and setting: This cross-sectional, was conducted at Women medical and dental College, Pakistan. Methods: This cross- sectional study was conducted amongst the dentist of Pakistan. Survey utilized for this study was adopted and modified from the study conducted by Alkhudhairy F. Descriptive statistics were checked by means of percentages and frequency for all variables. In order to check significant difference among the responses given Chi-square test was applied. Results: From a total of 212 participants, there were 97 (45.8%) males and 115 (54.2%) females. There were 167 participants working in private sector while 45 worked in public sector. Amalgam was most commonly preferred for preparation of small cavities, agreed mutually by both males (45.4%) and females (27%). Majority of the male participants (51.5%) stated being unsure regarding the safety of amalgam, while majority of females (49.5%) reported amalgam unsafe for both dentist and the patients. Composite was the frequently used alternative restorative material by both males (39.2%) and females (51.3%). Conclusions: Though amalgam was the utmost frequently used material used for restoration of posterior teeth. Many study participants had awareness regarding the mercury toxicity but still it was used. However additional sessions can be conducted for reinforcing the safety element regarding the use of amalgam. Keywords: Dentists’ opinion, material, mercury, restorative materials, esthetics
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".