| Literature DB >> 34124238 |
Hira Abbasi1, Muhammad Saqib1, Rizwan Jouhar2, Abhishek Lal1, Naseer Ahmed3,4, Muhammad Adeel Ahmed2, Mohammad Khursheed Alam5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dental anxiety is a common occurrence in patients undergoing dental treatments, especially in children. The success in paedriatric dental treatments and patient comfort depends on controlling the level of patient's anxiety in clinical settings. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy of different techniques applied for the reduction of dental anxiety in paediatric patients. Material and Methods. One hundred and sixty participants were divided into 4 groups; each group having 40 patients as follows: group I: mobile application "little lovely dentist," group II: YouTube® "dental video songs," group III "tell-show-do," and group IV "control." Dental prophylaxis treatments were provided to all the participants. Initial anxiety levels were noted during the patient's education phase by measuring heart rate with pulse oximeter and distress level with facial image scale, at the same time in each group, respectively. The postoperative anxiety was noted later with the same methods, after the application of anxiety reduction techniques. The data obtained were entered in the statistical package for the social sciences software, version 25. One-way ANOVA and paired t-test for matched groups were used to compare mean values of the 4 groups, in this study to determine their effectiveness. A p value of ≤0.05 was considered as statistically significant.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34124238 PMCID: PMC8166486 DOI: 10.1155/2021/1119710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1CONSORT flow diagram of the study.
Figure 2Facial image scale (FIS). The scoring pattern for facial image scale was according to five different faces: 1 = no distress to 5 = severe distress.
Demographic characteristics of the patients of different groups.
| Groups | Variables | Mean and standard deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Little lovely dentist | Age | 6.8 ± 2.1 |
| Dental song | Age | 8.15 ± 2.27 |
| Tell-show-do | Age | 7.5 ± 2.3 |
| Control | Age | 7.27 ± 1.68 |
Comparison of heart rate and level of anxiety among the study groups (n = 120).
| Anxiety reduction techniques |
| Mean | Standard deviation |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Little lovely dentist | Before heart rate | 40 | 107.9 | 8.2 | 0.002 |
| After heart rate | 40 | 104.9 | 6.8 | ||
| Dental song | Before heart rate | 40 | 106.6 | 6.1 | 0.001 |
| After heart rate | 40 | 104 | 7.6 | ||
| Tell-show-do | Before heart rate | 40 | 101.4 | 15.6 | 0.677 |
| After heart rate | 40 | 108.2 | 7.5 | ||
| Control | Before heart rate | 40 | 102.8 | 5.3 | 0.013 |
| After heart rate | 40 | 107.5 | 5.9 | ||
Figure 3Distribution of mean heart rates of the patients before and after procedures using different techniques (n = 120). HR: heart rate; TSD: tell-show-do.
The comparison of FIS scores with anxiety reduction techniques in participants (n = 120).
| Anxiety reduction techniques | Mean |
| Standard deviation |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Little lovely dentist | Application FIS before | 2.80 | 40 | 1.06 | 0.032 |
| Application FIS after | 2.52 | 40 | 0.87 | ||
| Dental song | Song FIS before | 2.80 | 40 | 0.96 | 0.036 |
| Song FIS after | 2.47 | 40 | 0.84 | ||
| Tell-show-do | Tell-show-do FIS before | 2.60 | 40 | 0.74 | 0.001 |
| Tell-show-do FIS after | 3.30 | 40 | 0.96 | ||
| Control | Control FIS before | 2.91 | 40 | 0.92 | 0.013 |
| Control FIS after | 3.52 | 40 | 1.24 | ||
FIS: facial image scale; N: number of participants.