Perception of Minimum Interventional Dentistry among Dental Undergraduate Students and Interns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The philosophy of minimum interventional dentistry (MID) is to integrate prevention, remineralization, and minimal intervention for the placement and replacement of restorations. All branches of dentistry play an important role in practicing MID, and their primary goal is to realize that any restoration is of less biological significance than the healthy original tissue Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the perception of MID among dental undergraduate students and interns in terms of knowledge, attitude, and practice at the College of Dentistry. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among undergraduate students and interns at the College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed, which included basic demographic profiles and questions about the knowledge, attitude, and practices toward MID. The data were tabulated in MS Excel, and all statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 21. Results: A total of 163 dental students were recruited, with senior students comprising 73% and interns comprising 27%. Male students were slightly more prevalent (50.9%) than female students (49.1%). About 37.6% of participants received training about MID during educational courses, while 10.3% received it during their internship. A statistical test revealed that the prevalence of interns who were trained in performing MID was significantly higher (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The majority of the participants demonstrated proper knowledge, attitude, and practice in different aspects of MID. Interns reported a higher rate of knowledge, attitude, and practice in MID compared to undergraduate students. However, more education and hands-on training about MID concepts during the college curriculum are necessary to attain better knowledge, attitude, and practices that could be useful for more conservative clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".