Comparison of the effect of acceptance and commitment therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy on pain tolerance and intensity perception in patients with dental anxiety: A randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dental anxiety has negative effects on dentists' pain management. Patients have different levels of pain tolerance. Therefore, providing psychological interventions can reduce treatment avoidance and promote oral health. This study compared the effect of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) on pain coping strategies and pain perception intensity in patients with dental anxiety. Materials and Methods: This clinical trial with a pretest–posttest control group design and a 3-month follow-up period was performed on 45 patients with dental anxiety. They were randomly selected by convenience sampling method and assigned to two experimental groups and one control group. The first experimental group underwent 10 sessions of ACT, the second experimental group underwent 10 sessions of CBT, and the control group underwent oral care training. Data were collected by the Rosenstiel and Keefe's Coping Strategies Questionnaire and McGill Pain Questionnaire and analyzed by SPSS (version 24) software. The considered significance level is 0.05. Results: The results showed no significant difference between ACT and CBT in pain coping strategies and pain perception intensity ( P < 0.05) but indicated a significant difference between the treatment groups and the control group. Moreover, the results showed a significant difference between posttest and follow-up and pretest in pain coping strategies and pain perception intensity ( P < 0.01) but indicated no significant difference between posttest and follow-up ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: ACT and CBT can play an important role in the sustainable improvement of pain coping strategies and pain perception intensity in patients with dental anxiety.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".