Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42645491
Virtual Reality Goggles as a Distraction Technique for Managing Behavioral Conduct During Pulp Pediatric Dental Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Machuca-Portillo Carmen, Biedma-Perea Maria, Suárez-Marchena Cira, et al. · Dentistry journal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/dj14080517
Findings
Population Children aged 12 years or younger undergoing pulp therapy in primary teeth
4 findings
| Immersive virtual reality (VR goggles) distraction | Conventional behavior management, standard care or no distraction | Self-reported pain (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale) During dental treatment · Pediatric dental pulp therapy · Overall | SMD -1.281 [-2.493, -0.068] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency 3 studies · 209 participants |
| Immersive virtual reality (VR goggles) distraction | Conventional behavior management, standard care or no distraction | Self-reported pain (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale) During dental treatment · Pediatric dental pulp therapy · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis: omitting El Haleem et al. | SMD -1.667 [-3.050, -0.285] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Immersive virtual reality (VR goggles) distraction | Conventional behavior management, standard care or no distraction | Self-reported pain (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale) During dental treatment · Pediatric dental pulp therapy · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis: omitting Alshatrat et al. | SMD -1.443 [-3.213, 0.328] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Immersive virtual reality (VR goggles) distraction | Conventional behavior management, standard care or no distraction | Self-reported pain (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale) During dental treatment · Pediatric dental pulp therapy · Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis: omitting Shetty et al. | SMD -0.664 [-1.087, -0.240] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
Included primary studies 11
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bahrololoomi 2024 Efficacy of Virtual Reality Distraction in Reduction of Pain and Anxiety of Pediatric Dental Patients in an Iranian Population: A… PMID:38250512 | 2024 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Niharika 2018 Effects of distraction using virtual reality technology on pain perception and anxiety levels in children during pulp therapy of primary… PMID:30324926 | 2018 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shetty 2019 Effect of Virtual Reality Distraction on Pain and Anxiety During Dental Treatment in 5 to 8 Year Old Children. PMID:30730798 | 2019 | 1 other review | Self-reported pain (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale) | not extracted yet |
| Alshatrat 2025 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Self-reported pain (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale) | not extracted yet |
| Bahrololoomi 2024 Efficacy of Virtual Reality Distraction in Reduction of Pain and Anxiety of Pediatric Dental Patients in an Iranian Population: A… DOI:10.1155/2024/1290410 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| El Haleem 2022 Effect of Two Distraction Techniques on Children’s Behaviour, Anxiety and Pain in the Dental Setting DOI:10.21608/edj.2021.98689.1810 | 2022 | this review only | Self-reported pain (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale) | not extracted yet |
| Kasimoglu 2025 DOI:10.23804/ejpd.2024.2109 | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kasimoglu 2025 Reduction of Dental Anxiety in Children Using Virtual Reality: A Randomised Controlled Trial. PMID:39465519 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mahmoud 2022 EFFECT OF VIRTUAL REALITY GLASSES DISTRACTION ON THE ANXIETY OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN DURING PULPOTOMY TREATMENT (RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED… DOI:10.21608/adjalexu.2021.70615.1178 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Niharika 2018 Effects of distraction using virtual reality technology on pain perception and anxiety levels in children during pulp therapy of primary… DOI:10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_1158_17 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shetty 2019 Effect of Virtual Reality Distraction on Pain and Anxiety During Dental Treatment in 5 to 8 Year Old Children DOI:10.17796/1053-4625-43.2.5 | 2019 | 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 | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Technology-enhanced behavior guidance for pediatric dental anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of… (2026) | 3 | 0.04 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Children aged 12 years or younger undergoing pulp therapy in primary teeth, without systemic disease | Children 4 to 12 years undergoing pulpotomy or other dental procedures (n=7 studies; 20 to 154 children each) |
| Intervention | Immersive virtual reality distraction using head-mounted displays or VR goggles | Immersive VR goggles (n=7) |
| Comparison | Conventional behavior management, standard dental care or no distraction | Tell-show-do, conventional distraction, non-pharmacological management, cartoon, or not reported (n=7) |
| Outcomes | Pain perception and dental anxiety (primary); behavioral response and physiological parameters (cortisol, heart rate, pulse rate) (secondary) | Self-reported pain (n=3 pooled); dental anxiety (narrative); behavior; physiological parameters (narrative) |
| Study designs | Randomized controlled trials, split-mouth RCTs, controlled clinical trials | RCTs: 5 parallel-group RCTs, 2 crossover/split-mouth RCTs (n=7) |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
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 | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | 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 | Low | Low | yes |