Psychological factors and perceptions of pain associated with dental treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although pain during dental treatment has been identified as playing a major role in the onset of dental anxiety and is a major concern of patients when seeking dental care, there have been very few studies of the prevalence of pain during dental treatment and the factors associated with patients' perceptions of pain. This study used data from a longitudinal population-based study to assess the proportion of dental attenders who experienced pain while having dental treatment and the psychological characteristics which predisposed them to experience pain. Of 1422 subjects who completed questionnaires at baseline and five-year follow-up, 96.4% had visited a dentist over the observation period. Two fifths, 42.5%, reported having pain during treatment and one-fifth, 19.1%, had pain that was moderate to severe in intensity. Reports of pain were associated with the types of treatment received, and a number of baseline sociodemographic and psychological factors. In a logistic regression analysis predicting the probability of pain, a variable documenting the number of types of invasive treatment received (restorations, extractions, crowns/bridges, root canal therapy and periodontal treatment/surgery) had the strongest independent effect. Pain was also more likely to be reported by those with previous painful experiences and those who were anxious about dental treatment, expected treatment to be painful and felt that they had little control over the treatment process. Pain was less likely to be reported by those who said they were unwilling to accept or tolerate pain. Younger subjects and those with higher levels of education were more likely to report pain than older subjects and those with a lower educational level. These results indicate that pain is as much a cognitive and emotional construct as a physiological experience. They also have implications for dentists' behaviour when providing dental care.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".