METHODS: This study is a single blind, randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms in which participants will be allocated to VRET or IP with a ratio of 1:1. Thirty participants (18-50 years) meeting the Phobia Checklist criteria of dental phobia will undergo block randomization with allocation concealment. The primary outcome measures include participants' dental trait anxiety (Modified Dental Anxiety Scale and Dental Fear Survey) and state anxiety (Visual Analogue Scale) measured at baseline (T0), at intervention (T1), 1-week (T2), 3 months (T3) and 6 months (T4) follow-up. A behavior test will be conducted before and after the intervention. The secondary outcome measures are real-time evaluation of HR and VR (Virtual Reality) experience (presence, realism, nausea) during and following the VRET intervention respectively. The data will be analyzed using intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis.
DISCUSSION: This study uses novel non-invasive VRET, which may provide a possible alternative treatment for dental anxiety and phobia.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN25824611 , Date of registration: 26 October 2015.
METHOD: A single-blind RCT was conducted among 30 randomized patients with dental phobia to either VRET or informational pamphlet (IP) condition. Primary outcome anxiety measures (VAS-A, MDAS and DFS) were evaluated at baseline, pre- and post-intervention, 1-week, 3-months and 6-months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures assessed were pre-post behavioral avoidance, temporal variations of heart rate and VR-experience during and post-VRET, and dental treatment acceptance in both conditions at 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis, using a repeated measures MANOVA, revealed a multivariate interaction effect between time and condition (p = 0.015) for all primary outcome measures (all ps
Methods: This was a cross-sectional validation study. The original English version of the IDAF-4C+ was translated into Malay, back-translated, and then sent for content validation via an expert validation and face validation by the target student population. Three hundred and seventy questionnaires were then distributed among 16-year-old school children. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for the IDAF-4C module using a bootstrapped maximum likelihood estimator. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between the IDAF-S and IDAF-4C modules. Intraclass correlation (ICC) was used to determine the stability of the IDAF-S and IDAF-4C modules, while kappa values were used for the IDAF-P module.
Results: The response rate was 86.5% for CFA and 76.9% for stability. CFA showed the existence of only one factor with a reliability estimate of 0.921, obtained via Raykov's procedure. All items in the IDAF-S module were significantly correlated with the IDAF-4C module (P < 0.001). The IDAF-S and IDAF-4C modules were stable, as determined via a two-way mixed model with absolute agreement, a single measure and a Case 3 ICC (A, 1). The IDAF-P module showed satisfactory stability, as assessed via kappa values.
Conclusion: The Malay version of the IDAF-4C+ is valid and reliable in measuring dental anxiety and fear among Malaysian secondary school children.
DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, double-blinded study.
SETTING: University-based tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS: Thirty claustrophobic adults with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II who were planned for MRI.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to target-controlled infusion propofol or dexmedetomidine loading followed by maintenance dose for procedural sedation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was adequate reduction in patient anxiety levels to allow successful completion of the MRI sequence. Both methods of sedation adequately reduced anxiety levels in visual analog scale scores and Spielberger Strait Test Anxiety Inventory (P