Canadian dentists’ awareness and views on early childhood caries and its prevention and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Canadian Dental Association (CDA) recommends children visit a dentist within 6 months of the eruption of their first tooth or by 12 months of age. The aim of this study was to investigate Canadian dentists’ awareness and views on early childhood caries (ECC) and its prevention and management. Methods This study analyzed a subset of questions relating to dentists’ knowledge of ECC and prevention strategies, from a national survey of general and pediatric dentists, commissioned by the CDA in 2013. Analyses included descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant. Results Three thousand two hundred thirty-two out of 14,747 dentists responded (response rate of 21.9%), with 95.1% having heard of ECC. Overall, 60.9% of respondents reported that they were comfortable providing treatment to children with ECC. Significant differences were found between the number of years in practice and whether dentists were or were not comfortable providing prevention (19.5 ± 12.6 years vs. 25.4 ± 12.1 years; p < 0.001) or treatment for patients with ECC (19.1 ± 12.7 years vs. 22.5 ± 12.3 years; p < 0.001). Pediatric dentists (OR = 6.92; 95% CI: 2.57, 18.61), female dentists (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.24), dentists practicing in smaller urban areas (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.28), and dentists who were aware of the CDA's position on ECC (OR = 1.26; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.41) were more likely to be comfortable providing treatment for children with ECC. Conclusions While the majority of Canadian dentists have sufficient knowledge of ECC, not all are comfortable providing oral health care services to children at a young age. It is encouraging however, that most dentists are wanting additional oral health resources designed for education on ECC prevention for parents of young children.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".