Awareness among general public of Srikakulam in regards to periodontics, as a speciality in dentistry—a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Periodontology is most versatile and technique sensitive branch that deals with the tissues surrounding the teeth. Like other dental specialities periodontics is lacking its entity among general population. So, the present study is aimed to evaluate the awareness of general public of Srikakulam district in regards to periodontics as a speciality in dentistry. Methods: Present cross sectional survey evaluated 2,058 questionnaires proforma’s using 10 questions. Chi-square test was performed to assess the association with age and gender wise distribution. While Fischer exact test was performed to know who a periodontist was and what he does. Study was performed during January 1st 2023 to June 31st 2023. Questionnaires were distributed to participants and after 10 minutes they were returned. Subjects having >20 years age, interested to participate in the study were included and subjects who were not interested, dentists, all speciality dental practitioners, students pursuing dentistry as profession, dental hygienists and dental health care workers were excluded from the study. Results: Reveals 38.8% population had gum problems, lower percentages of 15.8% (P=0.20) of study population has higher level of awareness regarding periodontics as a separate specialty, who a periodontist was, what he does. For gender wise distribution females have much awareness than males but values were non-significant (P=0.20). While opting what a periodontist does, 59.1% (P<0.001) population opted for flap surgeries and implants, 33.7% never visited a periodontist, 54.5% reported no dental problems, degree and post-graduate people had a lesser percentages higher level of awareness with no significance (P=0.17). Regarding age variation 21–30 years group has shown higher level of awareness (19.9%). Further medicos had a higher significant level (P<0.001) of awareness than non-medicos. Conclusions: Present study concluded a low percentages of high level awareness for periodontics a specialty in dentistry, who a periodontist was and what he does indicating a lack of knowledge regarding the speciality in Srikakulam population. It is our responsibility to educate people regarding our speciality for interdisciplinary approach among people as well as medical fraternity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".