Societal costs and benefits of comprehensive dental care program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To estimate the societal costs and benefits of providing a comprehensive dental care program. This clinical trial conducted at the University of Toronto assessed the impact of providing comprehensive dental care, free of charge. Participants were followed for one year after achieving oral health stability (i.e., no oral pain and infection and does not require any immediate treatment). We estimated the societal costs of the treatment by capturing the direct and indirect costs. Direct costs included the cost of dental services. Indirect costs included opportunity costs, travel, and caregiving expenses. We also captured changes in: Self-Reported Oral Health (SROH); untreated tooth decay; and economic productivity at baseline (T0) and one-year (T1) after addressing their dental needs. Fifty participants completed their treatment plan and reached the one-year follow-up timepoint. Participants received a mix of diagnostic, preventive, and curative services. The total direct and indirect costs of dental care per person were estimated at CAD $2,580 (SD: 1,730), and CAD $532 (SD: 489), respectively. Forty-two percent of participants reported excellent and very good SROH at T1 compared to 12% at T0 (p<0.05); the average number of untreated teeth declined from 4.3 (SD: 4.8) at T0 to 0.5 (SD: 0.7) at T1 (p<0.05). Additionally, regular access to dental care resulted in economic productivity gains of CAD $18,623 (SD: 8,143). After one year of implementation, free dental care led to significant improvements to many individual oral health outcomes and economic benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".