MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132891337

A Survey of Trends in Teaching and Practice of Primary Molar Vital and Non Vital Pulp Therapy Among Pediatric Dental Program Directors and Pediatric Dentists

2024· dissertation· W7132891337 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron William Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulpotomyPulpectomyPulp cappingMolarEndodonticsPulp (tooth)Clinical Practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This study provides an update regarding trends in teaching and practice of vital and non-vital pulp therapy in primary molars with deep carious lesions.Methods: Internet surveys were sent to 85 program directors and 6000 pediatric dentists in Canada and the United States. The surveys were designed as modified versions of those published by Primosch in 1997. Three follow-up requests were sent. Results were summarized and analyzed using chi-square tests. Results: 841 pediatric dentists and 19 program directors returned surveys. Among dentists graduating after 2010, 76.5% reported performing an indirect pulp cap for an imminent pulp exposure and 23.5% reported performing a pulpotomy. Graduates from 2000-2009 selected indirect pulp cap and pulpotomy 49% and 51% respectively, and those graduating from 1960-1999, 56.6% and 43.4% respectively (p<.001). The most popular pulpotomy technique among pediatric dentists is MTA (39.2%) followed by formocresol (34.4%). 62% of pediatric dentists reported a change in their pulpotomy medicament since graduation, and 69.9% of those currently using MTA report having used it for 5 years or less. The most commonly taught pulpotomy medicament is MTA (56.3%) followed by formocresol (12.5%). While 95% of program directors teach pulpectomy, only 55% of practitioners perform the procedure in clinical practice (p<.001). In a situation during a pulpotomy in which radicular pulp is hemorrhagic and hemostasis is not achieved, the proportion of dentists who reported initiating a pulpectomy was 36% of 1960-1999 graduates, 31.5% of 2000-2009 graduates, and 22% of graduates 2010-present (p=.002). In the same clinical situation, the proportion of dentists who reported extraction was 26.4% of 1960-1999 graduates, 37.8% of 2000-2009 graduates, and 52.7% of graduates 2010-present (p<.001). Conclusion: There is a shift towards minimally invasive approaches in pulp therapy among pediatric dentists. MTA has marginally overtaken formocresol as the most popular pulpotomy medicament. Although pulpectomy is taught in training programs, fewer dentists perform the procedure in clinical practice, with more opting for extraction for teeth with necrotic or irreversibly inflamed pulps.

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)0.003
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207