Minimally invasive management of dental caries Contemporary teaching of posterior resin-based composite placement in US and Canadian dental schools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Resin-based composites are an increasingly popular material for restoring posterior teeth, permitting minimally invasive cavity preparations and esthetic restorations. The authors investigated current teaching of the placement of posterior resin-based composites in U.S. and Canadian dental schools.<br/><br/>Methods. In late 2009 and early 2010, the authors, with the assistance of the Consortium of Operative Dentistry Educators (CODE), invited 67 dental schools to participate in an Internet-based survey.<br/><br/>Results. The response rate was 73 percent. Although all schools taught the placement of resin-based composites in occlusal and most occlusoproximal cavities, eight schools (16 percent) did not teach placement of three-surface occlusoproximal resin-based composite restorations in permanent molars. Resin-based composites accounted for 49 percent of direct posterior restorations placed by dental students in 2009 and 2010, a 30 percent increase from 2005.<br/><br/>Conclusions. Teaching placement of posterior resin-based composites continues to increase in dental schools in the United States and Canada, with predoctoral students gaining, on average, an equal amount of experience placing posterior resin-based composites and amalgams in terms of numbers of restorations.<br/><br/>Clinical Implications. Evidence-based, up-to-date teaching programs, including those in operative dentistry, are needed to best prepare students for careers in 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it