Artículo 1
Artículo 1
DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12499
REVIEW ARTICLE
KEYWORDS
child behaviour, dental anxiety, dental fear, distraction
|
650 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ipd
© 2019 BSPD, IAPD and John Wiley & Sons A/S. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019;29:650–668.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PRADO et al.
|
651
stressful, not only for the paediatric dentist but also for the
patient and his/her caregiver.5,10,11 Why this paper is important for paediatric
Pain perception has a large psychological component based dentists
on the amount of attention directed toward the noxious stimu- • Children's and adolescents’ dental fear and dental
lus modulating the pain.12 Distraction techniques are anxiety‐ anxiety can be a challenge and a stress factor for
reducing strategies that overload the patient's limited attention paediatric dentist but also for patients and their
capacity, thus diverting their attention from unpleasant pro- parents/caregivers. Distraction techniques are fre-
cedures (noxious stimuli).12-14 Distraction techniques can be quently used by paediatric dentists during dental
active or passive.15 Active techniques involve activities that treatment, but it is important that clinicians know
require the direct participation of the child, such as the use of the scientific evidence regarding this topic.
toys and games.15 Passive techniques rely on the use of music • This paper shows the very low certainty of evi-
and video and do not require the child to directly participate.15 dence about the use of distractions techniques to
Distraction seems to be a safe and low‐cost strategy that reduce dental anxiety and fear among children and
can have a positive impact on young individual's dental fear adolescents, discussing the efficacy of each type
and anxiety, thus improving the quality of dental care.16-18 of distraction technique and rises important issues
Knowledge on the effectiveness of distraction techniques on the topic for future research.
may be helpful to increase clinician's confidence during the
management of fearful or anxious children and to assist the
practitioner in the improvement of children's and adolescent's
behaviour and experience during dental care, creating a more dental patients under 18 years old. The following PICO was
pleasant environment for the patient, his/her parents and the applied: Population: children and adolescents younger than
paediatric dentist. 18 years old with no alterations in growth or development
Many original studies have evaluated the effect of differ- and without cognitive disorders or syndromes; Intervention:
ent types of distraction techniques for dental fear and dental use of distraction techniques during dental treatment;
anxiety. Two reviews19,20 have addressed this issue, but these Comparison: no use of distraction techniques during dental
studies have summarized the evidence regarding specific treatment; Outcome: dental anxiety and/or dental fear.
techniques, such as audiovisual distraction19 and non‐phar- There were no restrictions regarding article publication
macological interventions.20 No systematic review in the date, language, or types of distraction technique. Exclusion
literature, however, has summarized the scientific evidence criteria were preliminary studies without conclusive results,
regarding the efficacy of all types of distraction techniques review articles, case reports, letters to the editor, expert opin-
during dental treatment thus far. Therefore, the aim of the ions, and meeting abstracts.
present systematic review was to determine whether distrac-
tion techniques reduce children's and adolescent's dental anx-
2.3 | Information sources
iety and fear during dental treatment.
Electronic searches from the databases’ date of inception
up to July 2018 were conducted in the following databases:
2 | M ATE R IA L S A N D ME T HODS MEDLINE through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus,
Cochrane Library, and the Latin American and Caribbean
The reporting of this systematic review follows the Preferred Health Sciences Literature (Lilacs). A manual search of the
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses references of the included articles was also performed to
(PRISMA) statement checklist. identify any other studies that might have been missed in the
electronic search. A grey literature search was performed
using the clinical trials database of the US National Library
2.1 | Protocol and registration
of Medicine. Finally, a search in Google Scholar, restricting
This systematic review was registered on the International the search by the first 100 most relevant hits, was conducted.
Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) References were managed using Endnote® software (Clarivate
under protocol number CRD42018084731. Analytics).
T A B L E 2 Summary of characteristics from included studies: authors, country, study design, sample age and size, instruments used,
outcome, and intervention (n = 20)
Dental examination, prophylaxis, restorative Audio distraction with instrumental music Absence of audio distraction with
procedures and extractions (group B) and nursery rhymes music (group C) instrumental and nursery rhymes music
Local anaesthesia injection Audio distraction with non‐specified music Absence of audio and audiovisual
(group II) and audiovisual distraction with 3D distraction
eyeglasses (group III)
Usual dental care that included an education Audio distraction with non‐specified music Absence of audio distraction with
session non‐specified music
Extraction Audio distraction with non‐specified music Absence of audio distraction with
non‐specified music
Dental examination, restorative procedures and Audio distraction with non‐specified music Absence of audio distraction with
local anaesthesia injection non‐specified music
Dental examination, prophylaxis, restorative Audio distraction with nursery rhymes (group Absence of audio and audiovisual
procedures, extractions B) and audiovisual distraction with a television distraction
screen (group C)
Restorative procedures, endodontic treatment Audiovisual distraction with eyeglasses Absence of audiovisual distraction with
and extractions eyeglasses
Dental examination, prophylaxis and restorative Audiovisual distraction with eyeglasses Absence of audiovisual distraction with
procedures eyeglasses
Local anaesthesia injection, pulpotomy and Audiovisual distraction with cartoon played on Absence of audiovisual with cartoon
restorative procedures a monitor played on a monitor
Local anaesthesia injection Audiovisual distraction with eyeglasses Absence of audiovisual distraction with
eyeglasses
Local anaesthesia injection Audiovisual distraction with video eyeglasses/ Absence of video eyeglasses/earphones
earphones system system
Restorative procedures Audiovisual distraction with eyeglasses Absence of audiovisual distraction with
eyeglasses
(Continues)
|
656 PRADO et al.
T A B L E 2 (Continued)
Dental examination, oral prophylaxis and Mirror and conversation (group 2), toys (group Absence of a distraction technique
restorative procedures 3) and children's stories (group 4)
Dental procedure ‐ Questionnaire, scale, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure (significant association when compared to control group)
658
Pulpotomy and
Distraction Clinical Oral pre‐formed metal
technique (type) Instrument examination prophylaxis Local anaesthesia Restoration Endodontic treatment Extraction crowns
Audio (Classic Heart rate Ramírez‐Carrasco et
directive hypnosis) al (2017)
Audio (English or CARS Kaur et al (2015) Kaur et al (2015)
Hindi or Punjabi DFSS‐SF Kaur et al Kaur et al
songs) (2015)a (2015)b
Heart rate Kaur et al (2015)c Kaur et al
(2015)d
Audio (non‐speci- MCDASf Nuvvula et al
fied music) (2015)e
VPT Yamini et al (2010) Singh et al (2014)f
WM‐FS Nuvvula et al
(2015)g
Heart rate Nuvvula et al (2015) Singh et al (2014)f
Systolic Singh et al (2014)f
blood
pressure
Audio (nursery CFSS‐DS Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al
rhymes) (2014) (2014) (2014)
VPT Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al
(2014) (2014) (2014) (2014)
VARS Naithani et al Naithani et al
(2014) (2014)
Heart rate Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al
(2014) (2014) (2014)
Audiovisual (3D HS Nuvvula et al (2015)
eyeglasses) MCDASf Nuvvula et al
(2015)e
MVARS Al‐Khotani et al
(2016)
WM‐FS Nuvvula et al (2015)
Heart rate Nuvvula et al (2015)
(Continues)
PRADO et al.
PRADO et al.
T A B L E 3 (Continued)
Dental procedure ‐ Questionnaire, scale, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure (significant association when compared to control group)
Pulpotomy and
Distraction Clinical Oral pre‐formed metal
technique (type) Instrument examination prophylaxis Local anaesthesia Restoration Endodontic treatment Extraction crowns
Audiovisual Heart rate Ghadimi et al (2018)
(cartoon played on VPT Ghadimi et al (2018)
a monitor)
Audiovisual CARS Kaur et al (2015) Kaur et al (2015)
(computer screen) DFSS‐SF Kaur et al Kaur et al (2015)
(2015)c
Heart rate Kaur et al Kaur et al (2015)h Kaur et al
(2015)c (2015)h
Audiovisual 5‐PFRS Hoge et al (2012) Hoge et al (2012) Hoge et al (2012)
(eyeglasses) FLACC Asvanund et al Mitrakul et al
(2015) (2015)i
VR Hoge et al (2012) Hoge et al (2012) Hoge et al (2012)
(disruptive
behaviour)
Heart rate Asvanund et al Mitrakul et al
(2015) (2015)j
Audiovisual CFSS‐DS Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al
(television screen) (2014) (2014) (2014) (2014)
VPT Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al
(2014) (2014) (2014) (2014)
VARS Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al
(2014) (2014) (2014) (2014)
Heart rate Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al Naithani et al
(2014) (2014) (2014) (2014)
Audiovisual (virtual MCDASf Asl Aminabadi et
reality eyeglasses) al (2012)
WBFS Asl Aminabadi et
al (2012)
(Continues)
| 659
T A B L E 3 (Continued)
|
Dental procedure ‐ Questionnaire, scale, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure (significant association when compared to control group)
660
Pulpotomy and
Distraction Clinical Oral pre‐formed metal
technique (type) Instrument examination prophylaxis Local anaesthesia Restoration Endodontic treatment Extraction crowns
Biofeedback Heart rate Dedeepya et al
(2014)
Blood Dedeepya et al
volume (2014)
pulse
Camouflage Syringe PESQ Ujaoney et al
(2013)k
VCRS Ujaoney et al (2013)
VPT Ujaoney et al
(2013)l
Dental operating VPT Sayed et al
microscope (2016)
Telescopic needle SEM Habib‐Agahi et al
(2017)
VACB Habib‐Agahi et al
(2017)
VAS Habib‐Agahi et al
(2017)
Notes. Abbreviations: 5‐PFRS: 5‐Point Face Rating Scale; CARS: Clinical Anxiety Rating Scale; CFSS‐DS: Child Fear Survey Schedule‐Dental Subscale; DFSS‐SF: Dental Subscale of Children's Fear Survey Schedule‐Short
Scale; FLACC: Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability Scale; FS: Frankl Scale; HS: Houpt Scale; MCDASf: Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale; MVARS: Modified Venham's Clinical Ratings of Anxiety and
Cooperative Behaviour Scale; PESQ: Parental Emotional Stress Questionnaire; SEM: Sound, Eye, Motor Scale; VACB: Venham's Anxiety and Cooperative Behaviour; VARS: Venham's Anxiety Rating Scale; VAS: Visual
Analogue Scale; VCRS: Venham's Clinical Rating Scale; VPT: Venham's Picture Test; VR: Video Recording; WM‐FS: Wright's Modification of Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale.
a
Statistically significant after the procedure for children aged 4‐6 y.
b
Statistically significant before the procedure for children aged 4‐6 y and after the procedure for children aged 4‐6 and 6‐8 y.
c
Statistically significant after the procedure for children aged 4‐6 and 6‐8 y.
d
Statistically significant after the procedure for children aged 6‐8 y.
e
Statistically significant after local anaesthesia.
f
Did not compare to control group.
g
Statistically significant during local anaesthesia.
h
Statistically significant during and after the procedure for children aged 4‐6 and 6‐8 y.
i
Statistically significant at pre‐operatory and first use of high‐speed hand piece.
j
Statistically significant at pre‐operatory moment.
k
Statistically significant for “angry, child was not co‐operating.”
l
Statistically significant for “crying,” “smiling,” and “crying and shocked.”
PRADO et al.
PRADO et al.
661
|
T A B L E 4 Synthesis of non‐significant results measured by subjective and objective instruments from included studies
Dental procedure—Questionnaire, scale, heart rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure (non‐significant association when compared to
control group)
(Continues)
|
662 PRADO et al.
T A B L E 4 (Continued)
Dental procedure—Questionnaire, scale, heart rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure (non‐significant association when compared to
control group)
Dental procedure—Questionnaire, scale, heart rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure (non‐significant association when compared to
control group)
Notes. Abbreviations: BRS, Behaviour Rating Scale; CARS, Clinical Anxiety Rating Scale; CFSS‐DS, Child Fear Survey Schedule‐Dental Subscale; DFSS‐SF, Dental subscale of
children's Fear Survey Schedule‐Short scale; FIS, Facial Image Scale; FLACC, Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability scale; FPS‐R, Pace Pain Scale‐Revised; FS, Frankl
Scale; HS, Houpt Scale; KRS, Koppitz Rating Scale; MCDASf, Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale; MDAS, Modified Corah Dental Anxiety Scale; NCBRS, North Carolina
Behaviour Rating Scale; PESQ, Parental Emotional Stress Questionnaire; VARS, Venham's Anxiety Rating Scale; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; VCRS, Venham's Clinical Rating
Scale; VPT, Venham's picture test; WM‐FS, Wright's modification of Frankl behaviour rating Scale.
a
Not statistically significant before the procedure for children aged 4‐6 and 6‐8 y and after the procedure for children aged 6‐8 y.
b
Not statistically significant before the procedure for children aged 6‐8 y.
c
Not statistically significant before and during treatment for children aged 4‐6 and 6‐8 y.
d
Not statistically significant before and during the procedure for children aged 4‐6 and 6‐8 y and after the procedure for children aged 4‐6 y.
e
Not statistically significant before the procedure.
f
Did not compared to control group.
g
Not statistically significant before the procedure for children aged 4‐6 and 6‐8 y.
h
Not statistically significant at rubber dam placement and during the remaining treatment.
i
Not statistically significant at rubber dam placement, first use of high‐speed hand piece and during the remaining treatment.
j
Not statistically significant for “none,” “some,” and “definite” from “child's tendency to cry in the dental clinic”; “happy, relaxed, doctor handled it well,” “concerned, wanted to
help the child,” “sad, cannot see the child cry” from “parents emotional stress quotient” and for “stop the treatment till child relaxes,” “let the dentist handle the manipulative
child,” permit physical restraint over the child,” and “use new treatment that is non‐traumatic” from “expectations from the dentist.”
k
Not statistically significant for “running out of chair,” “afraid before treatment but unaffected after treatment,” “shocked,” “angry, “did not react,” and “crying and running out of
chair”.
l
Not statistically significant considering the average heart rate over the entire treatment.
pain‐related behaviour during local anaesthesia (P < 0.001), with very low certainty of evidence (Appendix S3). Major
less distress (P < 0.05), and reported less pain after local an- concerns were regarding indirectness (very serious), risk
aesthesia (P = 0.0001) when compared to individuals receiv- of bias (serious), inconsistency (serious), and imprecision
ing conventional injections.30 (serious).
A mirror was used to distract children aged four to six
years by allowing them to monitor their own treatment. This
3.9 | Additional analysis
technique, used until the application of local anaesthesia,
and conversation (talking about matters of child's interest) Two articles35,36 of the same study were included. One
reduced dental anxiety and improved behaviour during the article 36 evaluated the distraction technique in individuals
second visit (P = 0.022).23 undergoing local anaesthesia, and the other35 evaluated the
distraction techniques in individuals submitted to restora-
tive treatment.
3.8 | Certainty of evidence rating and
strength of recommendations grading
In general, audio songs, hypnosis, 3D eyeglasses, eye- 4 | DISCUSSION
glasses, audiovisual techniques, biofeedback, camouflage
syringes, dental operating microscope, telescopic needle In this systematic review, most of the evaluated distraction
were effective distraction techniques for paediatric dentistry techniques had a significant effect on reducing anxiety and
|
664 PRADO et al.
F I G U R E 1 PRISMA flow diagram showing the numbers of studies identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in this
systematic review [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
fear levels at some point during dental treatment. Thus, the is no contraindication for the use of such techniques; they
use of distraction techniques during dental treatment may be are widely accepted by paediatric patients and are clinically
a good strategy for the management of children's and adoles- feasible and safe, with no need for prior training for clinicians
cent's dental anxiety and dental fear. and patients.12,13,15,16,29,41
Audio distraction was widely used in studies.13,15,16,25,26,29 There were six other types of distraction techniques used
The results indicate that listening to music and children's in the studies. The use of camouflaged syringes reduced pa-
stories during some treatment procedures reduces dental tients’ dental anxiety and fear during local anaesthesia injec-
fear and dental anxiety depending on the assessment instru- tion. This is probably because it allows more involvement of
ment used.13,15,16,25,26,29 More evidence is needed to confirm the patient in the treatment protocol, which helps to alleviate
these findings, as other studies found no significant changes dental fear.28 The use of a telescopic dental needle was effi-
in dental anxiety and fear levels when using audio distrac- cient in managing patients’ pain‐related behaviour, distress,
tion.13,15,16,25,26,29 It seems that the use of nursery rhymes and and pain level during local anaesthesia. This instrument al-
children's stories,13,26 two types of audio distraction tech- lows the professionals to cover the needle, so they can show
niques, may be more difficult to apply in young children in the syringe and say that they are going to “colour the child's
comparison with music because individuals need to pay at- teeth,” making paediatric patients less tense and stressed
tention for it to work. It is also possible that children may be during this procedure.30 Biofeedback therapy also seemed to
more focused at the beginning of the story then as it goes on, reduce dental anxiety when assessed using objective instru-
which makes it more efficient for procedures occurring at the ments.24 It appears that this technique requires motivation
beginning of the dental appointment.39 and reinforcement as well as a complex cognitive process-
Audiovisual distraction was also widely used. This type ing and sustained attention, which may not be appropriate for
of distraction technique leads to the total involvement of the young children.24 More studies are necessary to confirm the
patient, screening out the sight of dental treatment, resulting applicability of such techniques in reducing children's and
in a pleasurable experience.12,25,37,40 It can be used in many adolescent's dental fear and dental anxiety.
forms, such as 3D eyeglasses, eyeglasses, virtual reality eye- The influence of age on the distraction process is still
glasses, computer and TV screens, screens attached to the unclear, and only a few of the included studies evaluated
ceiling, and dental operating microscopes. These audiovisual the efficacy of the distraction techniques in different age
distraction techniques are quite different from each other, in groups.25,37 It seems that patients must actively participate
particular 3D eyeglasses (eyeglasses with 3D movies) and in the distraction process for it to be maximally effective, as
eyeglasses (eyeglasses with 2D movies). 3D eyeglasses’ vid- well as recognize their uncomfortable feeling and choose to
eos are reportedly more effective than 2D videos, due to the control the anxiety by concentrating on the distraction stimu-
effective isolation of the child from the sounds and views in lus.42 Young children may lack the cognitive ability to sustain
the dental office,15 but all these forms of audiovisual distrac- focus42 and depending on the distraction technique and its
tion significantly reduced dental anxiety and dental fear at content, it may not be interesting for both children and ado-
some point in the dental treatment.15,17,25-27,34,35,37 Non‐sig- lescents (eg, 3D eyeglasses, biofeedback, children's stories,
nificant results, however, were also reported during some dental operating microscope, nursery rhymes, live modelling,
treatment periods and depending on the instrument used to telescopic needle, toys, virtual reality eyeglasses). Most stud-
evaluate dental fear and dental anxiety.15,17,25-27,34-37 ies involved only children,13,15,17,23,25-27,30-36,38 and no study
The heterogeneity in audio and audiovisual distraction included only adolescents.
results may be due to the different forms and types of equip- The studies used two different methods to measure den-
ment used, different types of content played, and the volume. tal anxiety and dental fear: subjective instruments, which
It is possible that the audio may not be enough to mask some evaluate self‐perception of dental anxiety and dental fear
sounds in the dental operatory (eg, high‐speed handpiece, (eg, scales and questionnaires), and objective instruments,
and the saliva ejector), as the volume must allow the patient which evaluate physiological measures that indicate bio-
to hear the dentists’ commands and explanations.41 Some logical changes (eg, heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen
equipment involved headphones while some did not, which saturation levels).16,43 Biological markers are likely to eval-
may interfere in the techniques’ efficiency. In addition, some uate anxiety reduction more accurately than subjective in-
types of headphones may help block outside sounds, allowing struments, by measuring patients’ actual physiological state
a deeper immersion in the music.41 The dental anxiety and during the dental procedure.44 There is no contraindication
fear of certain procedures, such as intraoral injection, may for using objective instruments during any dental procedure.
be too overwhelming to be overridden by audio and audio- The information regarding heart rate and oxygen saturation
visual distraction.41 Even though more evidence is needed to may be an ally of paediatric dentists, as children may have
confirm the efficiency of audio and audiovisual distraction in difficulty verbalizing and describing what they are feeling.8
managing dental anxiety and dental fear, it seems that there There are smaller devices with reasonable cost‐effectiveness
|
666 PRADO et al.
available that are clinically useful and less intimidating for In all outcomes, certainty of evidence was rated down
children.15 in two levels due indirectness. Trials compared distraction
Subjective instruments rely on children's ability to express techniques according to some dental procedures. Moreover,
what they feel, which may be difficult for some. Younger chil- most studies13,15,17,24,28,31,32,34-36,38 included in their sample
dren are unlikely to consider their anxious feeling or disrup- children who presented cooperative behaviour. Therefore, af-
tive behaviour as being inappropriate.42 The combination of firming that distraction techniques are effective for all dental
subjective and objective methods may provide the best over- procedures or effective for uncooperative children is an indi-
view of the patient for anxiety management. The use of many rect evidence. We rated down risk of bias in one level. Trials
instruments, however, may cause confusing results, making had high risk of bias of blinding the participant, personnel
it difficult to understand the actual effect of the distraction and outcome assessors. Although blinding was not feasible in
technique. It should be noted that the great variety of instru- this kind of trial, knowing the group of randomization by the
ments used by the included studies provides very heteroge- outcome assessor would likely affect the measurement of the
neous results, making it difficult to compare all the results. final outcome. Inconsistency was rated down in one level due
Blinding of participants and personnel was the main reporting different estimates across studies. We considered
shortcoming among studies. The outcome measurement can optimal information size (OIS)21 to rate down imprecision in
be influenced by the operators’ knowledge, but it may not one level. OIS is the minimum required number of events and
be possible to control this risk of bias when studying some sample size across all studies, which is considered 400 for
types of distraction techniques. Most of the distraction tech- continuous outcome. Publication bias was not considered a
niques used the dental environment or were very difficult to problem, and it was not rated down. We conducted a compre-
hide from personnel and participants (eg, audiovisual with a hensive search including multiple databases and grey litera-
screen, camouflage syringe, live modelling). Eyeglasses could ture in US National Library of Medicine. Although studies
be used in the control group without any video to reduce the with statistically significant results are more likely published
risk of bias; however, children may feel uncomfortable and than studies with non‐significant results,47 we included stud-
scared.36 To reduce this type of bias in the audio distraction ies reporting both significant and non‐significant results.
method, operators and the children could use headphones, The present systematic review has also limitations. Due to
while a third person controls the measurements and the audio methodological heterogeneity among studies, meta‐analysis
player. Future studies should apply a methodology that blinds was impossible. The feasibility of any meta‐analysis relies on
personnel and participants when possible. Most studies failed the existence of clinical trials with more robust and homoge-
to calculate an appropriate sample size or present a power test neous methodological characteristics. The use of behaviour
and used a convenience sample instead. The number of partic- guidance techniques on both control and intervention groups
ipants in clinical trials should be sufficient for the probability was reported in included studies. Those are techniques em-
of finding differences between groups by chance to be low ployed by dentists to establish communication and adequate
and thus the probability of detecting significant differences rapport with the patient,48 improving child's cooperation.49
to be high.45 The lack of an adequate sample size limits the They were used in both groups (intervention and control) as
extrapolation of the results to the general population. a matter of ethical aspects. Therefore, what really made inter-
This systematic review has strengths that should be rec- vention and control groups different was the use of distrac-
ognized. Distraction techniques are applied during dental tion techniques.
treatment to divert patient's attention from the dental proce- Changes in emotion, such as enjoyment, reflect on the au-
dure.12-14 Two systematic reviews19,20 have focused on specific tonomic nervous system's activities50 consequently reducing
distraction techniques: audiovisual and non‐pharmacological dental anxiety and fear and improving behaviour during dental
techniques. In the present work, however, we included all treatment. Cooperative behaviour is essential for a successful
types of distraction techniques as intervention, resulting in a dental treatment. Therefore, any strategy that contributes to
more comprehensive synthesis of the evidence and providing the management of children's and adolescent's behaviour may
clinicians with several strategy options to be applied during be helpful in the paediatric dentistry clinic. Paediatric den-
dental practice. Moreover, only RCTs comparing one group tists’ awareness of the effectiveness of different distraction
of children submitted to distraction technique and a control techniques may be useful to improve the clinicians’ capabil-
group of individuals who were not submitted to any distrac- ities to mitigate fear/anxiety, enhancing paediatric patients’
tion intervention were considered. Findings of RCTs with experience during dental treatment. It is important that the
control groups allow the reader to assign any detected effect to paediatric dentists are aware of all different techniques, al-
the intervention evaluated. Non‐randomized trials, however, lowing them to apply the most appropriate strategy according
preclude assertive conclusions on the efficacy of the treatment to each child's or adolescent's individual characteristics.
implemented.46 Additionally, we used GRADE to summarize The studies available to date in the literature suggest that
certainty of evidence of effects from narrative synthesis.21 distraction techniques can be effective in managing children's
PRADO et al.
|
667
and adolescents’ dental anxiety and fear during dental treat- 4. Steimer T. The biology of fear‐ and anxiety‐related behaviors.
ment with very low certainty of evidence. Future studies Dialogues Clin Ceurosci 2002; 4: 231‐249.
with more homogeneous methodological characteristics and 5. Akbay Oba A, Dülgergil CT, Sönmez IS. Prevalence of dental
anxiety in 7‐ to 11‐ year‐old children and its relationship to dental
further research comparing different distraction techniques
caries. Med Princ Pract 2009; 18: 453‐457.
among children with different ages are encouraged.
6. Kakkar M, Wahi A, Thakkar R, Vohra I, Shukla AK. Prevalence of
dental anxiety in 10–14 years old children and its implications. J
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dent Anesth Pain Med 2016; 16: 199‐202.
7. Silveira ER, Goettems ML, Demarco FF, Azevedo MS. Clinical
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de and Individual Variables in Children’s Dental Fear: A School‐
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil Based Investigation. Braz Dent J 2017; 28: 398‐404.
(CAPES)—Finance Code 001. This article received financial 8. Soares FC, Lima RA, Barros M, Dahllöf G, Colares V. Development
of dental anxiety in schoolchildren: a 2‐year prospective study.
support from the following Brazilian agencies: the Conselho
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2017; 45: 281‐288.
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National
9. Berge M, Veerkamp J, Hoogstraten J, Prins PJ. Childhood dental
Council for Scientific and Technological Development) (CNPq), fear in the Netherlands: prevalence and normative data. Community
the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002; 30: 101‐107.
(Research Support Foundation of the State of Minas Gerais) 10. Ramos‐Jorge J, Marques LS, Homem MA, et al. Degree of dental
(FAPEMIG), and the Pró‐Reitoria de Pesquisa Universidade anxiety in children with and without toothache: prospective assess-
Federal de Minas Gerais (PRPq/UFMG). ment. Int J Paediatr Dent 2013; 23: 125‐130.
11. Ribas TA, Guimarães VP, Losso EM. Evaluation of children’s anx-
iety when submitted to dental treatment. Arquivos em Odontologia
CONFLICT OF INTEREST 2006; 42: 190‐198.
12. Wismeijer AA, Vingerhoets AJ. The use of virtual reality and au-
The authors report no conflicts of interest and are alone re-
diovisual eyeglass systems as adjunct analgesic techniques: a re-
sponsible for the content and writing of the paper. view of the literature. Ann Behav Med 2005; 30: 268‐278.
13. Marwah N, Prabhakar AR, Raju OS. Music distraction – it efficacy
in management of anxious pediatric dental patients. J Indian Soc
AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS
Pedod Prev Dent 2005; 23: 168‐170.
IMP. and LC collected the data; JMSN, CCM designed and 14. Dahlquist LM, McKenna KD, Jones KK, Dillinger L, Weiss
conceived the ideas; LGA analysed the data; SMP edition KE, Ackerman CS. Active and passive distraction using a head‐
and funding support; IMP., CCM, LGA, SMP final edition. mounted display helmet: effects on cold pressor pain in children.
Health Psychol 2007; 26: 794‐801.
15. Nuvvula S, Alahari S, Kamatham R, Challa RR. Effect of audiovi-
ORCID sual distraction with 3D video glasses on dental anxiety of children
experiencing administration of local analgesia: a randomised clini-
Ivana Meyer Prado https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3233-5927 cal trial. Eur. Arch Paediatr Dent 2005; 16: 43‐50.
Larissa Carcavalli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2844-3490 16. Singh D, Samadi F, Jaiswal JN, Tripathi AM. Stress reduction
through audio distraction in anxious pediatric dental patients:
Lucas Guimarães Abreu https://orcid.
an adjunctive clinical study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014; 7:
org/0000-0003-2258-8071
149‐152.
Júnia Maria Serra‐Negra https://orcid. 17. Asl Aminabadi N, Erfanparast L, Sohrabi A, Oskouei SG, Naghili A.
org/0000-0001-6098-3027 The impact of virtual reality distraction on pain and anxiety during
dental treatment in 4–6 year‐old children: a randomized controlled
Saul Martins Paiva https://orcid.
clinical trial. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2012; 6: 117‐124.
org/0000-0002-3968-1638 18. Srouji R, Ratnapalan S, Schneeweiss S. Pain in children: assess-
Carolina Castro Martins https://orcid. ment and nonpharmacological management. Int J Pediatr 2010;
org/0000-0001-9072-3226 2010: 474838.
19. Liu Y, Gu Z, Wang Y, et al. Effect of audiovisual distraction on the
management of dental anxiety in children: a systematic review. Int
R E F E R E NC E S J Paediatr Dent 2019; 29: 14‐21.
20. Goettems ML, Zborowski EJ, Costa FD, Costa VP, Torriani DD.
1. Armfield JM, Heaton LJ. Management of fear and anxiety in the Nonpharmacologic intervention on the prevention of pain and anx-
dental clinic: a review. Aust Dent J 2013; 58: 390‐407. iety during pediatric dental care: a systematic review. Acad Pediatr
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical 2017; 17: 110‐119.
Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edn. Arlington, VA: American 21. Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Schünemann HJ, Sultan S, Santesso N.
Psychiatric Association, 2013. Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate
3. Serra‐Negra J, Paiva SM, Oliveira M, Ferreira E, Freire‐Maia F, of effect. Evid Based Med 2017; 22: 85‐87.
Pordeus I. Self‐reported dental fear among dental students and 22. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and
their patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013; 9: 44‐54. strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490.
|
668 PRADO et al.
23. Rank R, Rank MS, Vilela J, Ogawa WN, Correa M. Dental anxiety 39. Muñoz N, Alvarez IM, Cárdenas JM. Eficacia de La técnica de dis-
and behavior in young children undergoing different distraction tech- tracción contingente com material auditivo en el comportamiento
niques. Pesquisa Bras Odontopediatria Clín Integr. 2017; 17: 3651. de pacientes entre 4 y 6 años de edad. CES Odont 1998; 11: 13‐20.
24. Dedeepya P, Nuvvula S, Kamathan R, Nirmala SV. Behavioural 40. Hubert W, de Jong‐Meyer R. Psychophysiological response pat-
and physiological outcomes of biofeedback therapy on dental anx- terns to positive and negative film stimuli. Biol Psychol 1991; 31:
iety of children undergoing restorations: a randomised controlled 73‐93.
trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2013; 15: 97‐103. 41. Aitken JC, Wilson S, Coury D, Moursi AM. The effect of music
25. Kaur R, Jindal R, Dua R, Mahajan S, Sethi K, Garg S. Comparative distraction on pain, anxiety and behavior in pediatric dental pa-
evaluation of the effectiveness of áudio and audiovisual distrac- tients. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 114‐118.
tion aids in the management of anxious pediatric dental patients. J 42. Venham LL, Goldstein M, Gaulin‐Kremer E, Peteros K, Cohan J,
Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015; 33: 192‐203. Fairbanks J. Effectiveness of a distraction technique in managing
26. Naithani M, Viswanath D. Child’s dental anxiety: management by young dental patients. Pediatr Dent 1981; 3: 7‐11.
audio and audio‐visual distraction technique ‐ a comparative study. 43. Porritt J, Marshman Z, Rodd HD. Understanding children’s den-
Univ Res J Dent 2014; 4: 101‐107. tal anxiety and psychological approaches to its reduction. Int J
27. Sayed A, Ranna V, Padawe D, Takate V. Effect of the video output Paediatr Dent 2012; 22: 397‐405.
of the dental operating microscope on anxiety levels in a pediatric 44. Góes M, Domingues MC, Couto G, Barreira AK. Anxiety, fear and
population during restorative procedures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev vital signs of the child signs of the child patients. Odontol Clín‐
Dent 2016; 34: 60‐64. Cient 2010; 9: 39‐44.
28. Ujaoney S, Mamtani M, Thakra T, et al. Efficacy trial of 45. Oliveira BH, Nadanovsky P. Psycometric properties of the Brazilian
Camouflage Syringe to reduce dental fear and anxiety. Eur J version of the oral health impact profile‐short form. Community
Paediatr Dent 2013; 14: 273‐278. Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005; 33: 307‐314.
29. Yamini V, Bailwad N, Nirmala S, Sivakumar N. Effectiveness of 46. Barton S. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The
music distraction in the management of anxious pediatric dental best RCT still trumps the best observational study. BMJ 2000; 321:
patients. Annals and Essences of Dentistry 2010; 2: 1‐5. 255‐256.
30. Habib‐Agahi R, Gandjalikhan‐Nassab AS, Hashemipour MA, 47. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr.
Saidi AR, Eskandarizadeh A. Comparing pain and pain‐related be- Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8:
havior in children with invented telescopic dental needles. J Oral 343‐353.
Health Epidemiol 2017; 6: 33‐39. 48. Riba H, Al‐Shahrani A, Al‐Ghutaimel H, Al‐Otaibi A, Al‐Kahtani
31. Ghadimi S, Estaki Z, Rahbar P, Shamshiri AR. Effect of visual dis- S. Parental presence/absence in the dental operatory as a behavior
traction on children's anxiety during dental treatment: a crossover ran- management technique: a review and modified view. J Contemp
domized clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018; 19(4):239‐244. Dent Pract 2018; 19: 237‐241.
32. Garrocho‐Rangel A, Ibarra‐Gutiérrez E, Rosales‐Bérber M, 49. Wells MH, McCarthy BA, Tseng CH, Law CS. Usage of behavior
Esquivel‐Hernández R, Esparza‐Villalpando V, Pozos‐Guillén A. guidance techniques differs by provider and practice characteris-
A video eyeglasses/earphones system as distracting method during tics. Pediatr Dent 2018; 40: 201‐208.
dental treatment in children: A crossover randomised and con- 50. Nakahara H, Furuya S, Obata S, Masuko T, Kinoshita H. Emotion‐
trolled clinical trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2018; 19: 74‐79. related changes in heart rate and its variability during performance
33. Ramírez‐Carrasco A, Butrón‐Téllez Girón C, Sanchez‐Armass O, and perception of music. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1169: 35.
Pierdant‐Pérez M. Effectiveness of hypnosis in combination with con-
ventional techniques of behavior management in anxiety/pain reduc-
tion during dental anesthetic infiltration. Pain Res Manage 2017; 1‐5.
34. Al‐Khotani A, Bello LA, Christidis N. Effects of audiovisual dis- SUPPORTING INFORMATION
traction on children’s behaviour during dental treatment: a random-
Additional supporting information may be found online in
ized controlled clinical trial. Acta Odontol Scand 2016; 74: 494‐501.
35. Asvanund Y, Mitrakul K, Juhong RO, Arunakul M. Effect of au-
the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.
diovisual eyeglasses during local anesthesia injections in 5‐ to 8‐
year‐old children. Quintessence Int 2015; 46: 513‐521.
36. Mitrakul K, Asvanund Y, Arunakul M, Paka‐Akekaphat S. Effect How to cite this article: Prado IM, Carcavalli L,
of audiovisual eyeglasses during dental treatment in 5–8 year‐old Abreu LG, Serra‐Negra JM, Paiva SM, Martins CC.
children. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2015; 16: 239‐245. Use of distraction techniques for the management of
37. Hoge MA, Howard MR, Wallace DP, Allen KD. Use of video eye- anxiety and fear in paediatric dental practice: A
wear to manage distress in children during restorative dental treat- systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int
ment. Pediatr Dent 2012; 34: 378‐382. J Paediatr Dent. 2019;29:650–668. https://doi.
38. Rojas‐Alcayaga GA, Alfaro K, Ríos‐Erazo M, Herrera AC,
org/10.1111/ipd.12499
Barahona P. Music distraction effectiveness in dental anxiety and
treatment adherence in 6‐year‐old children: A randomized clinical
trial. Int J Odontostomat 2018; 12: 35‐42.