Evidence-based practice of hypnosis in dentistry: Narrative summary of reviews and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to provide a concise summary of the scientific literature in the form of a narrative review to highlight areas where the use of clinical hypnosis is supported by scientific evidence in dentistry. A literature review was carried out to identify relevant peer-reviewed articles on PubMed, written in French or in English, with time limitation from 2000 to May 2023, and updated in December 2024. Articles had to be systematic reviews or meta-analysis linked with the management of dental anxiety and acute dental pain, as well as chronic orofacial pain. Twelve articles were selected for analysis, with 8 on dental anxiety, 3 on temporomandibular disorders, and 1 on burning mouth syndrome. Several literature reviews and meta-analyses published on the subject support the use of hypnosis in several clinical contexts, including local anesthesia, dental extraction and dental anxiety in adults and children. Evidence is also presented to improve the condition of patients suffering from pain associated with temporomandibular disorders. However, the literature remains somewhat fragmented because of the diversity of hypnosis techniques applied, and the different dental procedures or conditions explored. Hypnosis can have a considerable impact in the management of dental anxiety and acute dental pain. It also seems promising for the management of orofacial pain, but further research would be necessary. This research highlights that the available evidence is sufficient to encourage the integration of evidence-based hypnosis training to improve the management of acute stress and pain in dental practice.
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.
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 | 0.031 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it