Perceptions of emergency department physicians regarding the management of traumatic dental injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate the self-reported confidence level and education of Atlantic Canada emergency department physicians in the management of traumatic dental injuries and to assess the need for further education surrounding the management of dental trauma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An 18-item survey was developed and distributed electronically to physicians by their respective provincial medical associations. RESULTS: Traumatic dental injuries were reported in the emergency department on a weekly basis (78%). Most respondents reported that they were somewhat confident (51%) or very confident (7%) in managing traumatic dental injuries. Physicians' years in practice correlated positively with self-reported confidence levels in managing dental trauma. Urban and rural emergency department physicians reported similar levels of access to general dentists (38% and 30%, respectively); however, urban emergency department physicians reported greater access to pediatric dental specialists (43%) and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (81%) than rural practicing colleagues (4% and 30%, respectively). Most emergency department physicians (85%) agreed that it was important to receive training on the management of traumatic dental injuries and reported that education on managing traumatic dental injuries during residency (37%) and access to a dental trauma decision-making pathway (30%) would be of most value. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the role of emergency department physicians as first responders and demonstrates opportunities for improvement in the initial management of traumatic dental injuries. These implications can be achieved through the incorporation of further training in emergency medicine residency programs and through the implementation of decision-making pathways in emergency departments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".