Prevalence and pattern of psychological symptoms in form of dental fear and anxiety in children and adolescents with traumatic dental injuries: a systematic review.

N Tewari; E Wadhwani; R Schibbeye; V Mathur; P Haldar; M Rahul; G Tsilingaridis

doi:10.1007/s40368-026-01274-z

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42709400

Prevalence and pattern of psychological symptoms in form of dental fear and anxiety in children and adolescents with traumatic dental injuries: a systematic review.

N Tewari·E Wadhwani·R Schibbeye·V Mathur·P Haldar·M Rahul·G Tsilingaridis

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the level and pattern of dental fear and anxiety (DFA) amongst children and adolescents with traumatic dental injuries (TDI) and, where available, to compare these outcomes with non-traumatised controls. METHODS: An a priori protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261329946). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus on 3 March 2026, with additional grey literature, citation, and reference searching. No language or time restrictions were applied. Observational clinical studies assessing DFA in individuals with TDI using validated tools were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 2885 records were identified, of which 4 cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria after screening. Studies were conducted in Croatia and Kosovo and included paediatric populations. Sample sizes ranged from 147 to 505 participants. Different validated scales (CFSS-DS, CDAS, S-DAI) were used to assess DFA. Overall, children with TDI demonstrated predominantly low levels of dental fear and anxiety across assessment tools. However, findings were inconsistent, with some studies reporting lower or similar anxiety levels in TDI patients compared to controls. Risk of bias was moderate or high in three of the four studies, and the overall certainty of evidence was rated as low to very low due to methodological limitations, heterogeneity, and imprecision. CONCLUSION: The limited available evidence suggests that children and adolescents with TDI do not consistently present with higher levels of dental fear and anxiety than non-traumatised controls. These findings indicate that TDI does not inherently cause DFA, underscoring the critical role of empathetic behaviour support in mitigating post-traumatic dental fear. However, the evidence is based on a small number of regionally concentrated cross-sectional studies with low to very low certainty. Future prospective studies using standardised TDI classifications, validated DFA instruments, and clearly defined assessment time points are needed.

Explore related subjects

Dental anxiety Dental trauma Psychological effects Traumatic dental injury Journal Article Systematic Review

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

N Tewari, E Wadhwani, R Schibbeye, V Mathur, P Haldar, M Rahul, G Tsilingaridis. 2026-09-08. Prevalence and pattern of psychological symptoms in form of dental fear and anxiety in children and adolescents with traumatic dental injuries: a systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-026-01274-z

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Systematic Review resource Journal Article subject Systematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Comfort and Usability of Digital Versus Conventional Custom-Fit Mouthguards: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The use of mouthguards protects teeth and the supporting tissues against impacts. Digital impressions and 3D-printed models can reduce manufacturing steps and minimize discomfort. This study evaluated the fit, comfort, and usability of custom-made mouthguards, obtained by conventional and digital workflow, in amateur athletes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Amateur athletes were recruited for this randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical study. Each participant received two 4-mm-thick custom-fit mouthguards made of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) sheets using two protocols: conventional impression using alginate to produce dental stone cast (CMP) and intraoral digital scanning to produce 3D-printed resin models (DMP). Each mouthguard was worn during all training and matches over 3 months. The order of mouthguard use was randomly assigned. Patient satisfaction with the impression protocol and mouthguard use, model accuracy, and mouthguard fit were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 46 participants completed the study. The DMP protocol required less execution time (p = 0.023), caused less discomfort (p = 0.018), anxiety (p = 0.008), nausea (p = 0.027), difficulty breathing (p < 0.001), and unpleasant taste (p = 0.006) compared to the CMP protocol. The pain (p = 0.971) perceived by the participants was similar in both impression protocols. The CMP-mouthguards were considered to be better fitting by the majority of participants (p = 0.027). Between-group comparisons revealed that DMP-mouthguard caused less discomfort immediately postadaptation (p = 0.034), with no significant differences observed at 30 or 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: The digital workflow demonstrated to be efficient in the fabrication of mouthguards. Digital impression was more comfortable, requiring less execution time, with more accurate printed models and produced mouthguards with reported comfort and fit levels similar to those manufactured conventionally.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Evaluation of intravenous sedation in dental implant surgeries: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of intravenous sedation on patient-centered outcomes during implant and bone augmentation surgeries. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study included 40 patients undergoing placement of ≥3 implants, with or without bone augmentation. Patients underwent surgery under either intravenous sedation (n = 20) or local anesthesia alone (n = 20), according to routine clinical decision-making and patient preference. The sedation group received intravenous sedation with a multimodal regimen comprising remimazolam, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil, and low-dose esketamine, whereas the control group received local anesthesia only. Patient-reported outcome measures, hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, HR, SpO2), postoperative pain (0-10 scale), and OHRQoL (OHIP-14) were recorded from baseline through 7 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Intravenous sedation was associated with significantly lower intraoperative pain (0.5 [IQR: 0∼2.75] vs. 3.25 ± 2.40, p = 0.003), anxiety (1 [IQR: 0∼2.75] vs. 4 [IQR: 3∼6], p = 0.001), and experienced discomfort (2 [IQR: 1∼3.75] vs. 4.15 ± 2.16, p = 0.016), and shortened perceived treatment duration (2.90 ± 2.34 vs. 5 [IQR: 4∼5], p = 0.020). Early postoperative pain was lower in the sedation group from Days 1-4 (p = 0.003-0.010). Hemodynamic parameters were more stable under sedation, with lower SBP (116.42 ± 13.32 vs. 144.11 ± 17.42 mmHg, p < 0.001), DBP (73.21 ± 10.28 vs. 82.37 ± 11.03 mmHg, p = 0.012), and HR (71.00 [IQR: 62.50∼79.25] vs. 85.00 ± 10.72 bpm, p = 0.021). OHRQoL scores favored the sedation group in swallowing, diet, malaise, and daily activities, particularly during the first three postoperative days (p=0.006-0.040). CONCLUSION: Intravenous sedation may enhance the patient experience during implant and/or bone augmentation procedures by reducing intraoperative pain and anxiety, improving hemodynamic stability, and promoting better early-postoperative recovery and OHRQoL. These findings suggest that intravenous sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for implant dentistry surgery, particularly for anxious or pain-sensitive individuals.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between intraoral scanning and conventional impressions for complete-arch implant prostheses: a pilot RCT.

OBJECTIVE: To compare framework passive fit, subjective evaluations, and short-term clinical outcomes between conventional impressions (CI) and intraoral scanning (IOS) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDPs). METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 22 patients were allocated to the CI or IOS groups. All participants received a definitive one-piece CIFDP. The primary outcome was framework passive fit, assessed using the Vision and Tactile Score (V&T score), which included framework lift-off, the single-screw test, the full-screw test, smoothness of screw insertion, and radiographic gap assessment. Secondary outcomes included operator evaluation, patient satisfaction using a visual analog scale (VAS), early implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), modified Plaque Index (mPII), and complications at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled (CI: n = 11; IOS: n = 11), and one patient in the CI group was lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference in the V&T score was observed between the CI and IOS groups (4.66 ± 0.17 vs. 4.65 ± 0.28; P = 0.93). The operator reported greater nervousness during the CI procedure than during IOS (21.82 ± 15.69 vs. 8.64 ± 7.47; P < 0.05). Patients in the CI group reported significantly greater discomfort, including nausea and anxiety, than those in the IOS group (P < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, the early implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in MBL (0.09 ± 0.09 vs. 0.06 ± 0.10 mm; P = 0.43) or mPII (0.10 ± 0.12 vs. 0.10 ± 0.28; P = 0.99). CONCLUSION: IOS and CI achieved comparable short-term clinical outcomes in patients who met the predefined inclusion criteria, including controlled implant number, spacing, and angulation. IOS provided a more favorable experience for both operators and patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In complete-arch implant restorations, intraoral scanning may provide clinical outcomes comparable to those of conventional impressions while improving patient comfort.

Humans↗