Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42395591
Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis of AI-Enabled and Digital Technology-Assisted Interventions for Dental Anxiety During Dental Treatment.
Saghiri Mohammad Ali, Saini Ravinder S, Alshahrani Ahid Amer, et al. · Depression and anxiety · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1155/da/8850179
Findings
Population Children and adults receiving dental treatment or dental anxiety assessment in dental clinics
2 findings
| AI-enabled or digital technology-assisted tools for dental anxiety (humanoid robot, mobile app, AI-linked virtual reality with GSR) | Pre-intervention baseline (pre-post comparison) | Dental anxiety score (mixed scales: FIS and GSR-based score) Post-intervention versus pre-treatment · Dental clinic | MD 0.41 [-0.04, 0.87] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 180 participants |
| AI-enabled or digital technology-assisted tools for dental anxiety (humanoid robot, mobile app, AI-linked virtual reality with GSR) | Control (no treatment or therapy without robot) | Dental anxiety score (mixed scales: FIS and GSR-based score) Post-intervention · Dental clinic | MD -0.72 [-1.23, -0.21] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 280 participants |
Included primary studies 7
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kasimoglu 2020 Robotic approach to the reduction of dental anxiety in children. PMID:32730719 | 2020 | 2 other reviews | Dental anxiety score (mixed scales: FIS and GSR-based score) | not extracted yet |
| Abbasi 2021 The Efficacy of Little Lovely Dentist, Dental Song, and Tell-Show-Do Techniques in Alleviating Dental Anxiety in Paediatric Patients: A… PMID:34124238 | 2021 | this review only | Dental anxiety score (mixed scales: FIS and GSR-based score) | not extracted yet |
| Al Kheraif 2023 Effect of Virtual Reality and Artificial Intelligence on Anxiety and Behavior Among Individuals with Mental Disabilities in a Dental Setting DOI:10.57197/jdr-2023-0045 | 2023 | this review only | Dental anxiety score (mixed scales: FIS and GSR-based score) | not extracted yet |
| Huang 2022 Experience of using a smartphone WeChat applet for dental anxiety assessment and preoperative evaluation: A nationwide multicenter study. PMID:35923975 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Klingberg 2009 Machine learning methods applied on dental fear and behavior management problems in children. PMID:10540931 | 1999 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shetty 2024 Reliability and validity of artificial intelligence-based innovative digital scale for the assessment of anxiety in children. PMID:38197569 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tellez 2015 Computerized Tool to Manage Dental Anxiety: A Randomized Clinical Trial. PMID:26202996 | 2015 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Children and adults undergoing dental treatment or dental anxiety assessment in dental clinics | Children (n=4 studies), adults (n=2) and both (n=1); sample sizes 50 to 3204 (n=7) |
| Intervention | AI-enabled or digital technology-assisted tools for dental anxiety measurement, prediction, tracking, behaviour management or alleviation | Computerised CBT (n=1), humanoid robot (n=1), mobile applications (n=3), machine learning assessment (n=1), AI-linked VR with GSR (n=1) |
| Comparison | Standard care, no intervention, wait-list control, non-AI comparator or pre-intervention baseline | Wait-list, no treatment, therapy without robotics, pre-intervention baseline, none (n=7) |
| Outcomes | Dental anxiety scores, behavioural outcomes, physiological measures of anxiety, treatment compliance, patient experience | MDAS, FIS, FBRS, GSR, Venham scales, CFSS-DS, RMS-DAS, heart rate, behaviour, adherence, satisfaction (n=7) |
| Study designs | RCTs, non-randomised interventional studies, observational studies and validation studies | 2 RCTs, 2 cross-sectional, 1 retrospective, 1 comparative, 1 participatory (n=7) |
| Timing | Not specified | Single session to 12 months follow-up |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | No | No | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Partial Yes · NRSI: Partial Yes | NRSI: Partial Yes · RCT: Partial Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: No · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: No | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |