Teaching students the repair of resin-based composite restorations - A survey of North American dental schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether North American dental schools teach students to repair resin-based composite or RBC restorations and to compare the findings with those from similar European surveys. Materials and Methods. The authors mailed a 15-item questionnaire to 64 dental schools in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. The survey asked whether the school taught repair of RBC restorations and inquired about the respondents experience with such procedures. Questions also elicited reasons why schools taught or did not teach repair information in regard to relevant decision-making processes, criteria for deciding whether to perform repairs and the nature of the instruction (theoretical, practical preclinical or clinical). Results. Fifty-two (81-percent) of 64 schools participated in the survey. Thirty seven (71 percent) of the respondents reported that they taught undergraduate students repair techniques as an alternative to replacing failing RBC restorations. Twenty-seven (73 percent) of these 37 schools reported that such teaching was at the clinical level, while only three schools (8 percent) reported that it was included in formal lectures as part of preclinical courses. The major reasons given for teaching students how to repair RBC restorations were tooth structure preservation and reduction of potentially harmful effects on the pulp. Indications included the correction of marginal defect and marginal discoloration. Conclusions. More than one-half of the respondents reported that they taught repair of RBC restorations and that patients were willing to accept such treatment. Most schools considered the repair of RBC restorations to be a definitive measure and reported that on average, they expected a repaired RBC restoration to have a longevity of four years.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".