Linking Perspectives: A Participatory Study of Instructor and Patient Scores in Dental Anatomy and Morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transition from dental education to practice can be challenging for novice clinicians given the discrepancies between the curriculum and clinical practice. Dental anatomy is one area where such discrepancies are prominent, despite its significance in clinical restorative dentistry. These discrepancies are mostly understudied, and little is known about the alignment between the classic dental anatomy evaluation criteria and the patients' perspectives. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to bridge the gap between education and practice by exploring the relationship between the instructors' and patients' evaluations of students' anterior wax-ups in the context of dental anatomy education. METHODS: This study utilised a retrospective time-series design over the course of 13 academic years. Instructors and patients blindly evaluated patient-based anterior wax-ups produced by students during the dental anatomy course using a scale of 0-100. Data were analysed using t-tests and Pearson's correlations. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients' scores were included. Instructor and patients evaluated a total of 566 students' anterior wax-ups. A statistically significant difference was observed between the overall instructors' and patients scores (p-value = 0.001), with instructors' demonstrating higher scores (mean = 85.79) than patients (mean = 67.78). A positive statistically significant correlation was observed between the instructors' and patients' scores (r = 0.42, p-value = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this emphasise the importance of exposing students as early as their first year in dental education to a patient-care environment and activities, including patient-based models. The alignment between the academic criteria and the patients' perspectives indicates the relevance of dental anatomy education. Future studies can explore patients' and instructors' perspectives in other courses, including restorative and rehabilitation dentistry.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".