Impact of audiovisual information on anxiety and fear in patients undergoing dental implant treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported the impact of audiovisual implant surgery information on anxiety and fear. PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of audiovisual information on anxiety and fear in patients undergoing dental implant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 300 patients due to undergo surgery to place a single implant. An interview topic guide and the Krantz Health Opinion Survey (KHOS) survey were used to assess the information patients already had about treatment and how much information they were seeking. Afterwards were randomized into two groups (n = 150): group 1 (verbal information) and group 2 (audiovisual information). Before surgery, anxiety and fear were assessed using State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Modified Corah Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS), and Dental Fear Scale (DFS) scales. After treatment, all patients described their satisfaction with the information received with a VAS. RESULTS: Before receiving information, both groups were homogenous in their knowledge of the implant procedure (P = .825) and the quantity of information sought (KHOS; P = .080). After receiving information, group 2 patients presented more anxiety and fear than group 1 (STAI-State, STAI-Treat, MDAS, DFS; P < .001). After surgery, both groups were equally satisfied with the information received and the need for additional information (P = .689; P = .199, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Audiovisual information generated greater anxiety and fear than conventional verbal information in patients undergoing implant surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".