The effect of written information on pain experience during periodontal probing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the effect of providing written information prior to periodontal treatment on the pain experience during periodontal probing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to the experimental or control condition and had to read the accompanying information. Information was manipulated to enhance perceptions of control. Anticipated pain (Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), dental anxiety (short version of the Dental Anxiety Inventory, S-DAI), and the Dental Control List were filled out before treatment; the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and experienced pain (NRS) were filled out after treatment. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in anticipated or experienced pain. However, the experimental condition evaluated treatment as less negative (MPQ-evaluative scale, F(1,55)=11.56, p<0.001), and scored lower on most measures. Subjects experiencing a discrepancy between desire for control and felt control showed the highest anticipatory distress (S-DAI, F(3,53)=6.32, p<0.001; anticipated pain, F(3,53)=3.28, p<0.03). CONCLUSION: Providing patients with written information prior to periodontal probing can alter the pain experience. Future research will be aimed at strengthening the impact of information.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".