Does the presence of parents in the dental operatory room influence children’s behaviour, anxiety and fear during their dental treatment? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of parents during the dental appointment can affect the child's behaviour and, consequently, the success of the treatment. AIM: This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether parents' presence in the operatory room influences children's behaviour, anxiety and fear during dental treatment. DESIGN: EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Databases were searched. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials in which some measure assessing children's behaviour and/or anxiety and fear during dental treatment with the presence and absence of parents were included. Two reviewers assessed studies for selection, extracted data, evaluated bias (Joanna Briggs Institute) and graded the certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Random-effects meta-analyses using mean difference (MD) and narrative synthesis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 2846 papers were identified, and after a 2-phase selection, sixteen studies were included (five in meta-analyses). There was no difference in children's behaviour in the presence or absence of parents (P = .23, P = .40, P = .60 and P = .89, respectively). The presence or absence of parents did not influence children's anxiety (P = .94 and P = .97) or fear (DM: -0.08; CI:-0.34-0.19, P = .24). All included studies presented a high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was considered to be very low. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that parents' presence in the operation room does not influence children's (up to 12 years old) behaviour, anxiety and fear during dental treatment with very low certainty of evidence. Methodological limitations of included studies, however, suggest that better designed trials are needed to adequately understand this issue.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".