Incidence of dental anxiety in young adults in relation to dental treatment experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To document the incidence of dental anxiety among individuals aged 18 years at baseline and 26 years at follow-up, and to determine if dental treatment experience continues to play a significant etiological role with respect to the onset of dental anxiety in young adults. METHODS: Dental anxiety scale (DAS; Corah, 1969) scores at ages 15, 18 and 26 were obtained for Study members in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Dental examinations were conducted, and sociodemographic and dental service-use data were collected using a self-report questionnaire. Using a case definition of a DAS score of 13 or more, age 18-26 incident cases were identified and their dental treatment experience and service-use characteristics compared with the remainder. RESULTS: DAS scores at 18 and 26 were available for 792 (80.8%) of the 980 26-year-old Study members. An increase in dental anxiety prevalence was observed over the eight-year period, with an annualized incidence of 2.1%. Fewer incident cases had visited a dentist in the previous eight years, and there were no differences between incident cases and others in their eight-year DFS, FS or tooth-loss increments. A subgroup of "recurrent" cases was identified who were dentally anxious at 15 and 26 but not at 18, and their eight-year incidence of tooth loss due to caries was substantially higher than non-cases. CONCLUSIONS: Aversive conditioning experiences appear to be unrelated to the adult onset of dental anxiety, and it may be that particular temperamental or psychological traits are associated with the condition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".