THE USE OF HYPNOSIS IN DENTISTRY IN ANXIOUS PATIENTS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWOF THE LITERATURE OF THE LAST 5 YEARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Dental anxiety and odontophobia significantly impact patient care and oral health. These conditions stem from factors such as direct conditioning, vicarious learning, and psychological predispositions, often leading to somatic symptoms and severe avoidance behaviors. Hypnosis has emerged as an effective approach for managing dental anxiety, providing benefits such as reduced fear and pain perception, improved patient collaboration, and enhanced healing. Materials and Methods:This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and analyzed studies retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases between 2019 and 2024. Randomized controlled trials, crosssectional studies, and comparative analyses examining hypnosis for dental anxiety and phobia were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed study quality and risk of bias. Data extraction focused on study design, outcomes, and patient demographics. Results:The search identified 75 papers, of which 56 were screened after removing duplicates. Following inclusion criteria, eight studies were analyzed. The risk of bias varied, with one high-quality study, two medium, and five low-quality studies. Evidence demonstrated hypnosis reduced anxiety, improved patient cooperation, and supported better oral health outcomes by addressing anticipatory anxiety and avoidance behaviors. Conclusion: Hypnosis, combined with techniques like hypnotic communication and iatrosedation, offers a nonpharmacological strategy to manage dental anxiety and phobia. These approaches establish trust, redefine negative past experiences, and personalize patient care, leading to improved dental experiences and psycho-oral health. Implementing these methods in dental practice can enhance patient well-being and treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".