Orofacial Pain is Underrepresented in Brazilian Dental Education: Findings from a National Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Effective pain management is essential to high-quality dental care, and its inclusion in dental curricula is vital to ensure future professionals are adequately trained. In Brazil, however, little is known about how pain-related content is integrated into undergraduate dental education. This study aimed toCitation1 identify whether pain curricula are present in Brazilian undergraduate dentistry programs andCitation2 analyze the content covered in these curricula, using international recommendations as a benchmark. Methods: We examined all accredited dental education programs (DEPs) in Brazil and analyzed their curricular content based on guidelines from the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) and the American Dental Association (ADA). Results: Among 274 DEPs analyzed, only 50 (18.2%) included a dedicated pain curriculum. Regional distribution varied, with 91 programs (25.1%) in the Northeast, 141 (38.8%) in the Southeast, 43 (11.8%) in the Midwest, 26 (7.2%) in the North, and 62 (17.1%) in the South. Among the 17 programs with curricula fully available, the most frequently covered topics were related to pharmacological management, such as local anesthetics (70.6%), airway anatomy and physiology (64.7%), and drug administration routes, analgesics, and antagonists (52.9%). In contrast, topics such as pain definitions and orofacial pain conditions (23.5%), orofacial malignancies (41.2%), and pain and anxiety control (11.8%) were less frequent. Notably, non-pharmacological approaches and drug abuse prevention were almost entirely absent. Conclusion: Brazilian dental education programs fall short of meeting the IASP and ADA recommendations for pain education, particularly regarding non-pharmacological content and substance misuse. These findings highlight significant curricular gaps that may affect dental students’ training and preparedness. Our results can support curriculum planners and academic leaders in identifying regional disparities and thematic omissions, ultimately guiding improvements in pain education within undergraduate dental programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".