An Experimental Study of the Effects of Psychological Interventions on Adult Patients with Dental Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental anxiety is a common problem and is considered an obstacle to providing quality dental care to patients. The present study was conducted to determine the prevalence of dental anxiety among patients under going restorative procedures in a university dental clinic, to determine the effect of a combination of psychological interventions (psychoeducation, relaxation therapy, and modeling technique) in reducing dental anxiety within and between experimental and control groups, and to identify differences in concern or anxiety towards dental procedures between pre-assessment, post-assessment, and follow-up assessment of experimental and control groups. Corah’s Dental Anxiety Scale, Revised (DAS-R) measured dental anxiety prevalence, and the Dental Concerns Assessment (DCA) identified factors causing dental anxiety. Patients experiencing dental anxiety were randomly assigned into an experimental or control group. Experimental group patients (n=15) received a 45-minute session of a combination of psychological interventions to reduce dental anxiety, whereas control group patients (n=15) received dental treatment as usual from general dental practitioners. A t-test and One-way analysis of variance were used for analyses. Results show that out of 65 patients, 41 had dental anxiety (prevalence 63.1%). Experimental group patients showed significant reduction in the post-assessment and follow-up DAS-R scores (F=18.85, P=<0.01) compared with pre-assessment scores. Significant reductions in post-assessment DCA scores were found for extraction, injection, and sound or vibration of the drill for the experimental group compared with pre-assessment scores (P<0.03). Over all, the combination of psychoeducation, relaxation therapy and modeling technique was effective at reducing dental concern and anxiety of dental procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".