Dental Trauma Education Among North American Dental Schools: Results From Multi‐Center Interviews With Dental Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Studies highlighted the limited confidence of general dentists to effectively manage dental trauma (DT) cases. DT education at the predoctoral level varies globally; however, little is known about it in North American dental schools. This gap in understanding could explain deficiencies in general dentists' treatment of DT cases. Therefore, this study aimed to gain insights into the existing predoctoral DT education across North American dental schools, identify gaps, and recommend improvements to refine and unify DT education. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with DT instructors and curriculum coordinators from North American dental schools. A validated questionnaire was used for the interviews. The questionnaire was divided into three sections: DT curriculum, student assessments, and clinical exposure during predoctoral training. Qualitative data were analyzed individually and grouped for common findings. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 62.6% (n = 52 universities). Sixty-three instructors from 48 dental schools participated in the analysis. Four schools opted out of the study. DT education was found to be fragmented in 47 schools, with a mean of 5.7 ± 1.57 h allocated to DT teaching. Only nine schools assessed students after completing DT coursework, and just one conducted a final examination solely on DT. All instructors reported insufficient clinical exposure to DT cases during rotations. CONCLUSIONS: Dental educators reported significant deficiencies in DT education in North American dental schools. Limited clinical exposure and an inconsistent curriculum may leave students ill prepared for managing DT cases. Increased hands-on experience and curriculum standardization across schools could improve DT education and preparedness.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".