Resin Composite Versus Amalgam Restorations Placed in United States Dental Schools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the latest teaching policies for posterior resin composite placement versus amalgam and to determine the actual numbers of posterior resin composites versus amalgam restorations placed in American dental schools from 2008 to 2018. METHODS: Emails were sent to the deans of all 66 dental schools in the United States to collect data in the forms of: 1) Questionnaire on current teaching policies of posterior composite and amalgam restorations; and 2) Data entry form to collect the actual numbers of posterior composite and amalgam restorations placed in their clinics. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize ratios of posterior restorations. Inferential analysis (chi-square test and z-test) was employed to compare posterior restoration proportions over time and within each year. Level of significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: For the teaching questionnaire, the response rate was 52% (n=34). Seventy-six per cent of the responding schools reported that they assign 50% or more of their preclinical restorative teaching time towards posterior resin composite placement, while 50% of the responding schools devoted 25% or less towards amalgam teaching. Data entry response rate was 26% (n=17). In 2008, amalgam and resin composite restorations were placed almost equally. However, resin composite restorations were placed significantly more frequently from 2009 onwards in all responding schools. The results revealed a significant ongoing increasing trend in placing posterior resin composites in all responding schools over time (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Data analysis revealed a clear trend towards an increase in posterior resin composite restoration placement and a decrease in the number of amalgam restorations. However, the time assigned for posterior resin composite teaching is not aligned with quantity of restorations placed. Review and adjustment of the time allocated for teaching and training of each material are suggested.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it