Assessing the need and demand for sedation or general anesthesia in dentistry: a national survey of the Canadian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to assess need and demand for sedation or general anesthesia for dentistry in Canada. A national telephone survey of a random sample of Canadians 18 years and over was undertaken. Data were collected by a professional survey organization using a 14-item questionnaire. Of 1,101 participants, 5.5% reported being either very afraid or terrified of dental treatment and 7.6% had avoided dentistry because of fear or anxiety. 12.4% were definitely interested in sedation or anesthesia and 42.3% were interested depending on cost. In a hypothetical situation of a severe toothache requiring endodontics, 12.7% reported high fear; 20.4% were definitely interested in sedation or anesthesia; 46.1% interested depending on cost. Preference for sedation or anesthesia if undergoing any one of: cleaning; fillings; endodontics; periodontal surgery; or extraction; was greater than current prevalence. These findings demonstrate significant need and demand for sedation and anesthesia for dentistry in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".