SynthesisBMC oral health2025
The effect of dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia on dental anxiety in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An interdisciplinary clinical framework for managing children with autism spectrum disorder in paediatric dentistry.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Review
- Navigating the Spectrum of Cariology: Laser-Mediated Theranostics in Pediatric and Adult Populations.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental fear and anxiety (DFA) are common in children, which can hinder their access to dental care and lead to poor oral health outcomes. Dental general anesthesia (DGA) is frequently used for uncooperative children or those requiring extensive treatment, enabling efficient care in a single session. However, its psychological effects on DFA—whether it alleviates or worsens anxiety—remain unclear. This highlights the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate DGA's impact on children's DFA.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to January 15, 2025, to identify observational and clinical studies on DFA in children (ASA I–II) under 12 years old before and after DGA or compared to those without DGA. Risk of bias was assessed by the NIH quality assessment tool for before-and-after studies without an external control, and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for case–control and cohort studies. Results were synthesized using standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with evaluations for heterogeneity and publication bias.
resultsTwelve studies were included in the review, with nine eligible for meta-analysis. Based on the NIH quality assessment tool, four studies were rated as good and three as fair. Three studies received medium quality scores on the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The analysis revealed no statistically significant changes in DFA after DGA (SMD = -0.7, 95% CI: -1.993 to 0.593, p = 0.289), nor between DGA and non-DGA groups (CFSS-DS: SMD = 0.132; MCDASf: SMD = 0.850). High heterogeneity and possible publication bias were observed. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low by GRADE.
conclusionThere was no statistically significant evidence that DGA increases or decreases DFA in children. Due to the variability in outcomes and assessment methods, future research should use standardized tools, consider confounding factors, and include longer follow-up periods to better understand the psychological effects of DGA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.