Dental Professionals' Perceptions of Silver Diamine Fluoride Use for Children and Older Adults in Northern Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Views on silver diamine fluoride (SDF) have been studied in various settings worldwide but remain underexplored in the Canadian context. In this study, we explored awareness, acceptability, general and economic perception and potential patient acceptance of SDF for caries management in children and older adults. We also looked at the impact of an educational workshop on SDF for dental professionals in Northern Ontario. METHODS: A 42-item structured questionnaire was administered to attendees at a workshop on minimally invasive dentistry held in Thunder Bay, Ontario. It elicited information regarding respondents' demographics, their perception, acceptance and use of SDF and the workshop's influence on uptake of the material. RESULTS: Participants in this cross-sectional study were 53 dental professionals, mainly dental hygienists (45.3%) and dentists (35.8%). Their views on the use of SDF as a minimally invasive technique and on how it was accepted by their patients and patients' caregivers were generally positive. Respondents reported that the workshop made them more likely to choose SDF for treating children (82.4%) and older adults (87.8%). We noted differences between dentists and non-dentists, specifically regarding potential parental acceptance of SDF staining in anterior temporary teeth (p = 0.030), as well as SDF's benefits in older adults in long-term care (p = 0.007), with a higher proportion of non-dentists viewing SDF more favourably. CONCLUSION: SDF awareness and acceptance were high among dental professionals in Northern Ontario who attended a workshop presenting the beneficial effects of SDF for children and older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".