MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114925295 · doi:10.3390/dj13120597

Pain Perception and Psychoemotional Responses Across Different Scaling Technologies: A Comparative Pilot Clinical Study

2025· article· en· W7114925295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDentistry Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMcGill Pain QuestionnaireDistressSensory systemVisual analogue scalePain perceptionClinical studyChronic painPain catastrophizing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Scaling is central to non-surgical periodontal therapy; however, it is often perceived as uncomfortable, particularly in periodontitis. Psychological distress may amplify pain and reduce adherence. This comparative pilot study assessed whether ultrasonic technology influences patient-reported pain and psychoemotional status while quantifying the contribution of the periodontal condition and baseline psychological factors. Methods: A monocentric split-mouth design enrolled 42 adults (21 with stage I–III, grade B periodontitis; 21 periodontally healthy). Maxillary scaling was performed with Device nr.1 and mandibular scaling was performed with Device nr.2, and no anesthesia was used. Pain was measured immediately post-procedure using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ; sensory and affective subscales). Psychological status was assessed pre- and post-session with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). Construct validity was examined via exploratory factor analysis. The Mann–Whitney U, Wilcoxon signed-rank, Spearman’s ρ, and Cliff’s δ were applied (α = 0.05). Results: The overall pain was low. Between devices, sensory pain did not differ, whereas affective pain was modestly lower with the “No Pain” device (p = 0.017). Periodontitis was the dominant determinant of pain: higher sensory (U = 509.00, p = 0.0004; δ = 0.42) and affective scores (U = 290.00, p < 0.0001; δ = 0.67) occurred irrespective of device, while device-related effects were negligible (sensory δ = −0.03) to small (affective δ = 0.27). Somatic distress correlated with affective pain (ρ = 0.25, p = 0.023) and was borderline for sensory pain (ρ = 0.21, p = 0.060); emotional distress showed no significant associations. During the session, K10 scores decreased and RSES values increased, indicating immediate psychoemotional benefits. Conclusions: Pain perception during scaling is shaped primarily by periodontal status and psychological distress rather than by ultrasonic technology per se. Although the electronic module to dynamically adjust the power of the instrument technology may attenuate the affective component, standardized atraumatic techniques and routine psychosocial screening are likely to yield greater gains. The observed short-term improvements in distress and self-esteem support integrating patient-reported outcomes into individualized, patient-centered periodontal care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDentistry JournalSame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207