Evaluating Communication Practices between Dentists and Dental Technicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of current communication practices and the understanding of technicians regarding written prescriptions. Methodology: This Questionnaire based cross-sectional study was conducted in Lahore, from Aug 2023 to May 2024, to assess communication quality between dentists and dental technicians. The sample consisted of 50 dental technicians currently employed in ten different private and public dental laboratories in Lahore, Punjab. The selection of participants was carried out using non-probability convenient sampling. Undergraduate students pursuing dental technology were excluded from the study to maintain a focus on experienced professionals who actively participate in dental restoration processes. Data were collected using a modified standardized questionnaire, including items on demographics and communication quality. Data was collected, reviewed for completeness, and analyzed using SPSS v24. Results: Most dental technicians (n=38, 68%) possess a BSc degree in dental technology with work experience ranging from 1 to 45 years. Communication preferences varied notably across workplace settings. About 46% (n=23) of the technician favored direct communication. There was a significant difference in communication modes between these settings (p=0.001), with a preference for personal visits, particularly among technicians from teaching institutes (n=23, 88.5%). The majority (n=42, 84%) reported positive receptivity from dentists, and 62% (n=31) indicated that communication was encouraged, particularly in teaching institutes. Issues regarding blank prescription cards were mixed, with 36% (n=18) never receiving them and 50% (n=25) consulting clinicians in such cases. Only 36% (n=18) of technicians felt they received sufficient information. Conclusion: Most technicians prefer direct communication from dentists, particularly in teaching institutes, compared to those in commercial labs who favor phone calls. A major concern was the lack of sufficient information and blank patient prescriptions from dentists. Addressing these gaps through standardized protocols, modern digital tools, and enhanced training can improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".