↓ Skip to main content

A survey of cariology teaching in Australia and New Zealand

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

2 tweeters


15 Dimensions

Readers on

46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
A survey of cariology teaching in Australia and New Zealand
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1176-4
Pubmed ID

Sarah L. Raphael, Lyndie A. Foster Page, Matthew S. Hopcraft, Peter J. Dennison, Richard P. Widmer, R. Wendell Evans


The Australian and New Zealand chapter of the Alliance for a Cavity Free Future was launched in 2013 and one of its primary aims was to conduct a survey of the local learning and teaching of cariology in dentistry and oral health therapy programs. A questionnaire was developed using the framework of the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA)/Association of Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) cariology survey conducted in Europe in 2009. The questionnaire was comprised of multiple choice and open-ended questions exploring many aspects of the cariology teaching. The survey was distributed to the cariology curriculum coordinator of each of the 21 programs across Australia and New Zealand via Survey Monkey in January 2015. Simple analysis of results was carried out with frequencies and average numbers of hours collated and open-ended responses collected and compiled into tables. Seventeen responses from a total of 21 programs had been received including 7 Dentistry and 10 Oral Health programs. Key findings from the survey were - one quarter of respondents indicated that cariology was identified as a specific discipline with their course and 41% had a cariology curriculum in written format. With regard to lesion detection and caries diagnosis, all of the program coordinators who responded indicated that visual/tactile methods and radiographic interpretation were recommended with ICDAS also being used by over half them. Despite all respondents teaching early caries lesion management centred on prevention and remineralisation, many taught operative intervention at an earlier stage of lesion depth than current evidence supports. Findings showed over 40% of respondents still teach operative intervention for lesions confined to enamel. Despite modern theoretical concepts of cariology being taught in Australia and New Zealand, they do not appear to be fully translated into clinical teaching at the present time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Other 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 16 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 35%
Engineering 5 11%
Psychology 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2018.
All research outputs
of 12,913,810 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
of 1,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 270,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,913,810 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them