MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416428002 · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106258

Factors associated with dental dam use during non-surgical root canal treatment: A national dental PBRN study

2025· article· en· W4416428002 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Law, Ellen Funkhouser, Rahma Mungia, Donald R. Nixdorf, Ernest W.N. Lam, Gregg H. Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dentistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsRoot canalRandomized controlled trialDental careDental practiceIsolation (microbiology)Baseline (sea)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Dental dam (DD) isolation is widely recognized as the standard of care during non-surgical root canal treatment (RCT), yet its routine use by general dentists (GDs) remains inconsistent. This study utilized real-world data from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network ("Network") to quantify the frequency of DD use and identify practitioner and practice characteristics associated with it. METHODS: A total of 153 Network dentists (49 endodontists, 104 GDs) enrolled 1860 adult patients requiring RCT across all six Network regions. After exclusions, data from 1701 patients were analyzed. Dentists recorded detailed pre- and post-treatment data for each RCT completed, including whether DD isolation was used. Statistical analyses were performed, including bivariate and multivariable models that adjusted for clustering of patients within practitioners. RESULTS: Endodontists reported near-universal DD use (99%). GDs used DDs in 72% of the teeth that received RCT, with wide inter-practitioner variability (SD=40%). Among GDs, higher DD use was significantly associated with practicing in large group or academic settings (OR=6.2, p=.04) and being located in the Midwest or Western Network region (OR=5.2, p=.005). GDs who identified as White, Asian, or Hispanic had higher DD use compared to other groups (OR=2.9, p=.09). DD use among GDs was not associated with tooth type, nor with the GD's sex, age, or professional membership. CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in DD use compared to prior reports, substantial variation persists among GDs. Practice setting and Network region are the strongest predictors of adherence to DD use. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: DD use during RCT remains inconsistent among GDs, with practice setting and Network region strongly associated with adherence. Targeted institutional and regional strategies may improve compliance, ensuring safer, higher-quality care and reinforcing DD isolation as a critical clinical standard in endodontics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of DentistrySame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207