Clinical and Preclinical Postgraduate Training in Endodontic Education: A Transnational Exploratory Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Endodontic postgraduate programmes should offer students a wide range of experiences and training in all facets of the specialisation. This study aimed to assess the current postgraduate education practices in endodontics across dental schools worldwide. METHODS: The current survey consisted of an online questionnaire that had been validated and piloted. It comprised 68 questions in three sections: general information about the programme, preclinical education, and clinical education. The survey included faculty members who teach postgraduate endodontics from one dental school in each participating country. The data was presented using simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 33 faculty members, with a response rate of 85%, from different countries completed the survey. The majority of dental schools that participated in the survey offer a 3-year postgraduate programme. The postgraduate students develop abilities in various instrumentation techniques, irrigation devices, sealers/cements, root canal filling techniques, surgery, and microscope use. Most of the schools conduct a final-year exit examination. CONCLUSIONS: Postgraduate education differs globally in its preclinical and clinical training. The survey offers initial insights into postgraduate endodontic education and can help establish mutual educational standards and key focus areas. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The curricula for preclinical and clinical education in postgraduate endodontics programmes vary globally.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".