BackgroundDental anxiety (DA) is a common condition associated with avoidance of dental care and subsequent health-related and psychosocial outcomes, in what has been described as the vicious circle of DA. Also, recent studies have found an association between the psychosocial concept of sense of coherence (SOC) and DA. More studies are needed to verify the relationship between DA and SOC, especially using population-based samples. There is also a need for studies including factors related to the vicious circle of DA, such as oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), in order to further establish the correlates of DA in the general population. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between DA and SOC, OHRQoL and health-related behaviour in the general Swedish population.MethodsThe survey included a randomly selected sample of the adult Swedish population (N = 3500, age 19 – 96 years.). Data was collected by means of telephone interviews. Dental anxiety was measured with a single question. The SOC measure consisted of three questions conceptualising the dimensions of the SOC: comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness. The data collection also included the five-item version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-5), as a measure of OHRQoL, as well as questions on oral health-related behaviour and socioeconomic status. Statistical analyses were made with descriptive statistics and inference testing using Chi-square, t – test and logistic regression.ResultsHigh DA was associated with low OHRQoL, irregular dental care and smoking. There was a statistically significant relationship between the SOC and DA in the bivariate, but not in the multivariate, analyses. Dental anxiety was not associated with oral health-related behaviour or socioeconomic status.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional national survey gives support to the significant associations between high dental anxiety, avoidance of dental care and health-related outcomes, which may further reinforce the model of a vicious circle of dental anxiety. The results further indicate a weak relationship between dental anxiety and sense of coherence.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to study the effectiveness of psychological interventions in adults and adolescents with poor oral health. The review follows the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The PICO format (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) was used to define eligible studies. The populations were adults or adolescents (≥13 y of age and independent of others) with poor oral health (defined as dental caries, periodontal disease, and/or peri-implantitis). The interventions were psychological and/or behavioral models and theories, in comparison with traditional oral health education/information. The primary outcomes were dental caries, periodontitis, gingivitis, and peri-implantitis. Secondary outcomes were dental plaque, oral health-related behavior, health-related quality of life, health beliefs and attitudes, self-perceived oral health, and complications/risks. The systematic literature search identified 846 articles in December 2013 and 378 articles in July 2015. In total, 11 articles on 9 randomized controlled trials were found to meet the inclusion criteria. These reported on adults with periodontal disease, and several used motivational interviewing (MI) as their mode of intervention. The CONSORT guidelines and the GRADE approach were used for study appraisal and rating of evidence. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in gingivitis or plaque presence. In addition, a meta-analysis on MI compared with education/information found no statistically significant differences in gingivitis presence. Only 1 meta-analysis-on psychological interventions versus education/information regarding the plaque index-showed a small but statistically significant difference. There were also statistically significant differences reported in favor of psychological interventions in oral health behavior and self-efficacy in toothbrushing. However, the clinical relevance of these differences is difficult to estimate. The certainty of evidence was low. Future research needs to address several methodological issues and not only study adults with periodontal disease but also adolescents and patients with dental caries and peri-implantitis.
The aim was to investigate the efficacy of behavioural interventions as treatment of dental anxiety/phobia in adults, by conducting a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The inclusion criteria were defined according to the Patients, Interventions, Controls, Outcome (PICO) methodology. The study samples had documented dental anxiety, measured using validated scales [the Dental Anxiety Scale (DAS) or the Dental Fear Survey (DFS)], or fulfilled the psychiatric criteria for dental phobia. Behavioural interventions included were based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)/behavioural therapy (BT), and control conditions were defined as information, sedation, general anaesthesia, and placebo/no treatment. The outcome variables were level of dental anxiety, acceptance of conventional dental treatment, dental treatability ratings, quality of life and oral health‐related quality of life, and complications. This systematic review identified 10 RCT publications. Cognitive behavioural therapy/behavioural therapy resulted in a significant reduction in dental anxiety, as measured using the DAS (mean difference = −2.7), but the results were based on low quality of evidence. There was also some support that CBT/BT improves the patients' acceptance of dental treatment more than general anaesthesia does (low quality of evidence). Thus, there is evidence that behavioural interventions can help adults with dental anxiety/phobia; however, it is clear that more well‐designed studies on the subject are needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.