AIM To evaluate the effectiveness of a Video Eyeglasses/Earphones System (VEES) as distracting device in reducing anxiety in children during dental procedures carried out under local anaesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this crossover clinical trial, 36 Frankl scale II and III children aged 5-8 years received different dental procedures in two sessions, with and without the VEES system. In the control visit, they were not exposed to this distraction stimulus, but traditional non-aversive behaviour management was applied. Each dental session was divided into four phases (explanation, anaesthetic injection, rubber-dam/clamp placement, and high-speed hand piece work for 5 min). Pain in each treatment phase was assessed by the following measurements: the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale. Pulse rate, and oxygen saturation measurements were employed to evaluate the state of anxiety. Comparison of the outcomes of two interventions were statistically analysed through the Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the results of the two interventions (VEES vs. no VEES/behavioural management) during the four treatment phases on assessment by any of the measurements employed. CONCLUSIONS: The VEES method was not more effective than traditional non-aversive behavioural techniques for reducing anxiety and pain perception in children undergoing dental treatment.
RCT Entities:
AIM To evaluate the effectiveness of a Video Eyeglasses/Earphones System (VEES) as distracting device in reducing anxiety in children during dental procedures carried out under local anaesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this crossover clinical trial, 36 Frankl scale II and III children aged 5-8 years received different dental procedures in two sessions, with and without the VEES system. In the control visit, they were not exposed to this distraction stimulus, but traditional non-aversive behaviour management was applied. Each dental session was divided into four phases (explanation, anaesthetic injection, rubber-dam/clamp placement, and high-speed hand piece work for 5 min). Pain in each treatment phase was assessed by the following measurements: the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale. Pulse rate, and oxygen saturation measurements were employed to evaluate the state of anxiety. Comparison of the outcomes of two interventions were statistically analysed through the Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the results of the two interventions (VEES vs. no VEES/behavioural management) during the four treatment phases on assessment by any of the measurements employed. CONCLUSIONS: The VEES method was not more effective than traditional non-aversive behavioural techniques for reducing anxiety and pain perception in children undergoing dental treatment.
Authors: Leah I Stein Duker; Mollianne Grager; Willa Giffin; Natasha Hikita; José C Polido Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 3.390