Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background and Objectives: Accurate assessment of Dental fear and anxiety (DFA) is crucial for effective management, yet the vast array of measurement tools presents a dilemma for clinicians and researchers in selecting appropriate methods. This literature review aims to provide a comprehensive review and comparison of the commonly used DFA measurement tools in the pediatric dentistry literature. Methods: A Comprehensive literature search was conducted in December 2024 using the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The search was limited to studies focused on identifying research relevant to DFA in children. For each DFA tool, information on its structure, validity, reliability, strengths, limitations, and target population was recruited and tabulated. A comparison between the DFA tools was then conducted. Quality assessment was performed using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PRO). Results: The search identified 15 subjective and 5 objective tools. Subjective tools included self-reported scales and pictorial analogs, while objective measures involved physiological monitoring and behavioral observation. While subjective tools offer valuable insights into a child’s self-perceived anxiety, their applicability is influenced by age and cognitive development. Objective measures provide quantifiable data, but require specialized equipment and trained observers. Tools combining simplicity, visual aids, and robust validation were found to be most practical for clinical use. Conclusions: A wide range of valid and reliable tools are available to assess DFA in children. Selection should be tailored to the child’s age, cognitive abilities, clinical setting, and clinician training. Combining subjective and objective assessments may enhance diagnostic accuracy.
Barry et al. (Wed,) studied this question.