Article

Hypnosis for children undergoing dental treatment

Military Dental Centre, PO Box 454, PC 121, Seeb, Oman.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007154.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Managing children is a challenge that many dentists face. Many non-pharmacological techniques have been developed to manage anxiety and behavioural problems in children, such us: 'tell, show & do', positive reinforcement, modelling and hypnosis. The use of hypnosis is generally an overlooked area, hence the need for this review.
This systematic review attempted to answer the question: What is the effectiveness of hypnosis (with or without sedation) for behaviour management of children who are receiving dental care in order to allow successful completion of treatment? Null hypothesis: Hypnosis has no effect on the outcome of dental treatment of children.
We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and PsycINFO. Electronic and manual searches were performed using controlled vocabulary and free text terms with no language restrictions. Date of last search: 11th June 2010.
All children and adolescents aged up to 16 years of age. Children having any dental treatment, such as: simple restorative treatment with or without local anaesthetic, simple extractions or management of dental trauma.
Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors of trials were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the criteria described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2.
Only three RCTs (with 69 participants) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis were not possible due to insufficient number of studies.
Although there are a considerable number of anecdotal accounts indicating the benefits of using hypnosis in paediatric dentistry, on the basis of the three studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review there is not yet enough evidence to suggest its beneficial effects.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
121 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Split-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are popular in oral health research. Meta-analyses frequently include trials of both split-mouth and parallel-arm designs to derive combined intervention effects. However, carry-over effects may induce bias in split- mouth RCTs. We aimed to assess whether intervention effect estimates differ between split- mouth and parallel-arm RCTs investigating the same questions.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 05/2014; 14(1):64. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-14-64 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify, appraise and summarize existing knowledge and knowledge gaps in practice-relevant questions in pediatric dentistry. A systematic mapping of systematic reviews was undertaken for domains considered important in daily clinical practice. The literature search covered questions in the following domains: behavior management problems/dental anxiety; caries risk assessment and caries detection including radiographic technologies; prevention and non-operative treatment of caries in primary and young permanent teeth; operative treatment of caries in primary and young permanent teeth; prevention and treatment of periodontal disease; management of tooth developmental and mineralization disturbances; prevention and treatment of oral conditions in children with chronic diseases/developmental disturbances/obesity; diagnosis, prevention and treatment of dental erosion and tooth wear; treatment of traumatic injuries in primary and young permanent teeth and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Abstracts and full text reviews were assessed independently by two reviewers and any differences were solved by consensus. AMSTAR was used to assess the risk of bias of each included systematic review. Reviews judged as having a low or moderate risk of bias were used to formulate existing knowledge and knowledge gaps. Out of 81 systematic reviews meeting the inclusion criteria, 38 were judged to have a low or moderate risk of bias. Half of them concerned caries prevention. The quality of evidence was high for a caries-preventive effect of daily use of fluoride toothpaste and moderate for fissure sealing with resin-based materials. For the rest the quality of evidence for the effects of interventions was low or very low. There is an urgent need for primary clinical research of good quality in most clinically-relevant domains in pediatric dentistry.
    PLoS ONE 01/2015; 10(2):e0117537. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117537 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
14 Downloads
Available from
Aug 1, 2014