MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361004350 · doi:10.3390/medicina59040649

Perception of Minimum Interventional Dentistry among Dental Undergraduate Students and Interns

2023· article· en· W4361004350 on OpenAlexaff
Manal M. Abdelhafeez, Fatima M. Alharbi, Swati Srivastava, Elzahraa Eldwakhly, Selma A. Saadaldin, Mai Soliman

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersPrincess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University
KeywordsInternshipDentistryPerceptionStatistical significanceMedical educationMedicineUndergraduate educationTest (biology)PsychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicDental Research and COVID-19French-language works237,207