Dental trauma education among Canadian dental schools: A Nationwide survey of dental trauma educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The extent of education regarding dental trauma within dental schools around the world is believed to be very diverse, but also largely unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze and depict the current curriculum regarding dental trauma education among all Canadian dental schools, in an effort to refine and consolidate the education system. METHODS: A survey was conducted over a scheduled meeting with dental trauma Instructors from all 10 dental schools in Canada. Questions were categorized into three sections investigating the dental trauma curriculum, the examinations/assessments of students, and the clinical exposure provided to students during the course of their dental studies. Data were first analyzed individually, and then common findings were grouped together. RESULTS: A total of 17 instructors were interviewed. In 9 out of the 10 universities, dental trauma education remains fragmented with an overall mean of only 4 ± 5.2 h allocated to teaching dental trauma throughout the dental courses. Only one single university reported testing students following the completion of their dental trauma course, and only one university conducted a final examination dedicated separately to dental trauma only. All instructors reported a lack of ample exposure to trauma cases during clinical rotations. CONCLUSIONS: Many deficiencies exist in teaching dental trauma among Canadian universities. Due to low clinical exposure, students might be under-prepared to clinically manage trauma cases. Also, the lack of unification in the curriculum creates confusion among students. Additional clinical exposure along with unification within, and between, dental schools could result in a more coherent and a better presented dental trauma curriculum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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".