Knowledge of undergraduate and postgraduate dental students about managing traumatic dental injuries based on the 2020 International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines: A online survey of 10 dental schools from 10 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The knowledge of dental students about managing traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) may not be uniform, depending on global location and dental education. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of knowledge of undergraduate and postgraduate students specializing in endodontics and pediatric dentistry at 10 dental schools in 10 countries about the 2020 International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines regarding the management of TDIs. MATERIALS & METHODS: A previously published questionnaire was used in the current survey. It was an online survey with 12 questions regarding the management of TDIs and some additional questions regarding sociodemographic and professional profiles of the participants were added. The survey was distributed to final-year undergraduate students and postgraduate students in pediatric dentistry and endodontics from 10 dental schools. Simple frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were predominantly used to describe the data. Differences in the median percentage scores among the student categories were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 347 undergraduates, 126 postgraduates in endodontics, and 72 postgraduates in pediatric dentistry from 10 dental schools participated in this survey. The postgraduates had a significantly higher percentage score for correct responses compared with the undergraduates. No significant difference was observed between the endodontic and pediatric dentistry postgraduates. CONCLUSION: The knowledge possessed by undergraduate and postgraduate students concerning the IADT-recommended management of TDIs varied across the globe and some aspects were found to be deficient. This study emphasizes the critical importance of reassessing the teaching and learning activities pertaining to the management of TDIs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".