MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410350914 · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105818

Current and future trends in the teaching of direct posterior composites restorations at dental schools in Canada: A cross-sectional study

2025· article· en· W4410350914 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Umer Daood, Preena Sidhu, Normaliza Ab Malik, Seow Liang Lin, Nairn Wilson, Christopher D. Lynch, Zeeshan Sheikh, Haider Al‐Waeli, Pierre-Luc Michaud, Igor R. Blum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dentistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersInner Mongolia UniversityDalhousie University
KeywordsCross-sectional studyDentistryMaterials scienceComposite materialMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current and future teaching of posterior composite restorations in undergraduate curricula at dental schools in Canada. METHODS: A 23-item validated questionnaire including closed and open questions pertaining to the teaching of posterior composites was emailed to faculty members of all 10 dental schools in Canada. Responses were compiled on Excel and analysed. RESULTS: Nine dental schools responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of 90 %. All respondent schools taught the use of posterior composites for two- and threesurface cavities in premolars and permanent molar teeth. The didactic teaching time devoted to composites was greater than for amalgam (38 % vs 29 %). Most schools were teaching to round internal angles (n = 9, 100 %), to make slot-type cavity preparations (n = 9, 100 %), and to avoid additional preparation for mechanical retention (n = 7, 78 %). All dental schools taught the use of rubber dam for moisture control, though 4 (44 %) said that it was not always mandatory. The most common contraindications to posterior composites reported were a history of adverse reaction to composites (n = 9), poor oral hygiene (n = 6), and inability to place a rubber dam (n = 5). CONCLUSION: The teaching of posterior composites in dental schools in Canada is wellestablished. Differences were observed in the teaching methods between dental schools in Canada and those in other countries and regions around the world. The diverse materials and techniques used across different regions may highlight a gap between clinical practice and research. Differences in the teaching between dental schools in Canada and the teaching in dental schools in other countries and regions of the world should be the subject of review. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Graduates from dental schools in Canada may be found to be well equipped with the knowledge and skills to perform posterior composite restorations in clinical practice. However, marked variation exists in the teaching between dental schools in Canada and teaching in other countries which should be the subject of review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of DentistrySame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207