2023 Chi - Gold Strandard of DA Scale
2023 Chi - Gold Strandard of DA Scale
2023 Chi - Gold Strandard of DA Scale
It is important to understand patients' anxiety and fear about dental treatment. A patient's anxiety can be quantified
through a self-report questionnaire, and many related scales have been developed. In this review, I tried to
find out which scale is most suitable for the patient's dental anxiety and fear evaluation by examining the contents
of previously developed scales and comparing the strengths and weaknesses of each scale.
Keywords: Anxiety Scale; Dental Anxiety; Dental Fear; Self Report; Surveys and Questionnaires
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: June 23, 2023•Revised: July 20, 2023•Accepted: July 25, 2023
Corresponding Author: Seong In Chi, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dankook University Sejong Dental Hospital, 3rd-floor Dankook building, 87, Do-um 8-ro,
Sejong, 30107, South Korea
Tel: +82-44-410-5066 Fax: +82-44-410-5000 E-mail: g9inc@naver.com
Copyrightⓒ 2023 Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
http://www.jdapm.org 193
Seong In Chi
Points were assigned for the subject’s choices, with one point for an (a) choice to 5 points for an (e) choice.
Fig. 1. Corah Dental Anxiety Scale (DAS) [9]
possible answers are: I would look forward to the visit. Modified Dental Anxiety Scale
(1)/I would not care one way or the other. (2)/I would 1. If you went to your dentist for TREATMENT TOMORROW, how
would you feel?
be slightly uncomfortable. (3)/I would be quite Not anxious □=[1]
Slightly anxious □=[2]
uncomfortable and fearful of the pain. (4)/I would be
Fairly anxious □=[3]
extremely fearful of what the dentist might do. (5) The Very anxious □=[4]
Extremely anxious □=[5]
higher the score, the higher the dental anxiety level can
be considered. The second, third, and fourth questions 2. If you were sitting in the WAITING ROOM (waiting for the
treatment), how would you feel?
inquire about the respondents' feelings during different Not anxious □=[1]
situations related to dental visits. These situations include Slightly anxious □=[2]
Fairly anxious □=[3]
waiting in the dental office on the day of the appointment, Very anxious □=[4]
just before the dentist starts using the dental drill, and Extremely anxious □=[5]
when the dentist is preparing to do scaling. The possible 3. If you were about to have your TEETH DRILLED, how would you
feel?
answers to these questions are: “I feel comfortable.” (1),
Not anxious □=[1]
“I feel slightly uncomfortable.” (2), “I feel tense.” (3), Slightly anxious □=[2]
Fairly anxious □=[3]
“I feel anxious.” (4), and “I feel extremely anxious to Very anxious □=[4]
the point of sweating or feeling actual physical Extremely anxious □=[5]
discomfort.“ (5). As with the first question, higher scores 4. If you were about to have your TEETH SCALED AND POLISHED,
indicate higher levels of dental anxiety. The total dental how would you feel?
Not anxious □=[1]
anxiety score is calculated by summing up the scores Slightly anxious □=[2]
from the four questions. The scores range from 4 to 20, Fairly anxious □=[3]
Very anxious □=[4]
and the patient's level of anxiety is quantified as follows: Extremely anxious □=[5]
a total score of 4 indicates "no fear”, a score between
5. If you were about to have a LOCAL ANAESTHETIC INJECTION in
5 and 8 corresponds to "low fear”, a score between 9 your gum, above an upper back tooth, how would you feel?
Not anxious □=[1]
and 14 indicates "moderate fear”, and a score between
Slightly anxious □=[2]
15 and 20 corresponds to "high fear" [9]. These scores Fairly anxious □=[3]
Very anxious □=[4]
help evaluate the level of dental anxiety experienced by Extremely anxious □=[5]
the patient. As a father of dental anxiety scale, DAS is Fig. 2. Modified Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS) [8]
considered the benchmark for dental anxiety scales and
serves as the most appropriate reference for newly or feel physically sick"). As a result, the scale's content
developed scales. While it has faced criticism in some is not monodimensional, meaning it doesn't measure
studies, it continues to be widely cited as the standard dental anxiety along a single consistent dimension [6].
for dental anxiety assessment [10]. In fact, numerous Third, DAS was not able to detect the effect of the
research papers compare correlation coefficients with this dentist-patient relations on dental anxiety [11].
scale when introducing newly created scales. There are
2. Modified Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS) [12]
indeed several criticisms regarding the disadvantages of
the DAS. First, it lacks content related to an important In 1995, 26 years after the development of DAS, the
aspect of dental treatment, which is local anesthesia MDAS was created by Humphris et al. from the United
injection. Secondly, the content used in questions 2, 3, Kingdom (Fig. 2). MDAS differs from DAS in two main
and 4 includes some items that pertain to emotional states aspects [8]. Firstly, it includes an additional question that
(such as "relaxed" or "anxious") and others related to asks about the patient's feelings just before receiving a
physical reactions (such as "tight," "break out in a sweat "local anesthetic injection," making five questions.
http://www.jdapm.org 195
Seong In Chi
1. Has fear of dental work ever caused you to put off making an appointment?
1 2 3 4 5
Never Once or twice A few times Often Nealy every time
2. Has fear of dental work ever caused you to cancel or not appear for an appointment?
1 2 3 4 5
Never Once or twice A few times Often Nealy every time
When having dental work done:
3. My muscles become tense…
1 2 3 4 5
Never Once or twice A few times Often Nealy every time
4. My breathing rate increases…
1 2 3 4 5
Never Once or twice A few times Often Nealy every time
5. I perspire…
1 2 3 4 5
Never Once or twice A few times Often Nealy every time
6. I feel nauseated and sick to my stomach
1 2 3 4 5
Never Once or twice A few times Often Nealy every time
7. My heart beats faster…
1 2 3 4 5
Never Once or twice A few times Often Nealy every time
1 2 3 4 5
None at all A little Some-what Much Very much
8. Making an appointment for dentistry…
9. Approaching the dentist’s office…
10. Sitting in the waiting room…
11. Being seated in the dental chair
12. The smell of the dentist’s office
13. Seeing the dentist walk in…
14. Seeing the anesthetic needle…
15. Feeling the needle injected…
16. Seeing the drill…
17. Hearing the drill…
18. Feeling the vibrations of the drill…
19. Having your theeth cleaned…
20. All things considered, how fearful are you
of having dental work done?
Fig. 5. Modified Dental Fear Survey (MDFS) [38]
on the avoidance behavior of patients with dental phobia. to 5 (great). The third part inquires about the level of
The first question evaluates the extent to which the patient anxiety regarding potential stimuli at the dental clinic and
avoids making appointments for dental treatment or consists of 15 questions. These questions explore anxiety
cancels them, with responses rated from 1 (never) to 5 levels during various dental situations, such as making
(often). The second question assesses whether the patient appointments, waiting in the waiting room, sitting in the
has ever skipped a dental appointment, also rated from dental chair, smelling the dental odor, and hearing the
1 to 5. The second part comprises six questions regarding sound of the dental drill. The response options are similar
somatic reactions to anxiety, evaluating muscle tension, to those in the second part. The last part of the DFS asks
increased respiration, sweating, nausea, increased heart about the anxiety level of the patient's parents, friends,
rate, and increased salivation on a scale from 1 (none) and people around them. The disadvantages of DFS are,
http://www.jdapm.org 197
Seong In Chi
third part, two questions regarding the feeling of possible consists of 15 questions (Fig. 7). The main focus is to
vomiting and experiencing pain even after anesthesia assess how patients perceive the way dental treatment is
were removed. provided by the dentist [20]. The DBS is divided into
four main parts, each addressing different aspects of the
6. Dental State Anxiety Scale (DSAS) [17]
patient's perceptions [21]. The first part focuses on
Developed in 1982, the DSAS is a modification of the communication-related content (Item nos. 1, 3, 4, 14, and
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), a widely used 15), evaluating how patients perceive their
psychological tool to assess general anxiety levels in communication with the dentist. The second part assesses
patients (Fig. 6) [18]. DSAS is tailored to evaluate anxiety the level of trust patients have in their dentist (Item nos.
specifically in dental situations. It comprises a total of 7 and 8). The third part explores the content of
20 questions, and respondents provide answers on a scale belittlement or fear of negative information (Item nos.
of 1 (not at all), 2 (somewhat), 3 (moderately so), or 4 6, 9, and 11). Lastly, the fourth part examines the feeling
(very much so). The questions focus on how the patient of a lack of control (Item nos. 5, 12, and 13) that patients
feels while being at the dental clinic, including emotions may experience. The responses are rated on a scale from
such as feeling calm, secure, tense, regretful, and so on. 1 (indicating highly positive beliefs) to 5 (reflecting
highly negative beliefs).
7. Getz's Dental Belief Survey (DBS) [19]
http://www.jdapm.org 199
Seong In Chi
anxiety was evaluated by summing the scores. One of the DAI, making it more suitable for clinical
drawback of the 36-item DAI is its length, which may applications (Fig. 10). The SDAI reduces the time aspect
make it less suitable for clinical applications [6]. to three phases and consists of 9 questions. Like the DAI,
Therefore, shortened versions of the DAI have also been the responses in SDAI are collected using a 5-point likert
developed to address this limitation. scale. The total score ranges from 9 to 45 points. The
interpretation of SDAI scores is as follows: scores of 9
10. The shortened version of Dental Anxiety Inventory
to 10 indicate minimal dental anxiety, 11 to 19 suggest
(SDAI) [23]
mild anxiety in specific situations, 20 to 27 imply
The SDAI was developed to overcome the limitations moderate anxiety with some self-control, and 28 to 36
http://www.jdapm.org 201
Seong In Chi
signify severe dental anxiety, making regular treatment a scale from 0% (I don't believe this thought at all) to
challenging. The correlation coefficient between DAI and 100% (I am absolutely convinced that this thought is
SDAI was found to be high, indicating a strong true).
relationship between the two scales (r = .90) [23].
13. Hierarchical Anxiety Questionnaire (HAQ in
11. Photo Anxiety Questionnaire (PAQ) [24] German HAF) [25]
The PAQ involves choosing one of five facial The HAQ, developed in Germany in 1999, consists of
expressions (1 = relaxed to 5 = very anxious) from a total of 11 questions, including six situations commonly
pictures depicting ten different situations along the known to induce anxiety in dental settings (Fig. 12). It
timeline from one month before dental treatment to the has been in used to diagnose anxiety and to differentiate
moment treatment ends. The total score ranges from 10 between anxiety and phobia. Each question is answered
to 50, and the distinctive feature is the use of pictures on a scale from "relaxed" (1 point) to "nauseous from
instead of written items for evaluation. anxiety" (5 points), and the anxiety level is calculated
by summing up the scores. Participants with scores of
12. Dental Cognitions Questionnaire (DCQ) [2]
30 or below are categorized as having low anxiety, those
Developed in the Netherlands in 1995, the DCQ with scores between 31 and 38 have a moderate level
comprises 38 questions related to negative perceptions of of anxiety, and those with scores of 38 or above are
dentists and dental care (Fig. 11). Patients respond with classified as having high anxiety. Additionally,
"Yes" (scored as 1) if they agree with the negative individuals with scores of 38 or above, who have also
perception or "No" (scored as 0) if they disagree. The avoided dental treatment for more than two years, are
total score ranges from 0 to 38. Additionally, patients are diagnosed with dental phobia [26].
asked to rate the degree of belief in each question on
http://www.jdapm.org 203
Seong In Chi
SINGLE-ITEM DENTAL ANXIETY SCALE In 1989, Gatchel introduced Gatchel's 10-point fear
scale, which allowed patients to self-assess their level of
anxiety towards dental treatment on a 10-point dental
The Single-item scale can be independently developed anxiety scale. A score of 1 represented "no fear," 5
as a scale but can also be created for one-time surveys. represented "moderate fear," and 10 represented "extreme
The first one introduced here, the Seattle Fear Survey fear." Patients were categorized into a low fear group
Item (Seattle), is part of a survey developed for telephone (scores 1-4), a moderate fear group (scores 5-7), and a
surveys in 1988, so it cannot be considered a formally high fear group (scores 8-10).
developed scale. However, it has been cited in other studies
4. Dental Anxiety Question (DAQ) [37]
for comparison purposes; hence it is included for reference.
VAS, Gatchel’s 10-point fear scale, and DAQ (Dental In 1990, DAQ was introduced by Neverlien from
Anxiety Question) are dental anxiety scales composed of Norway, which is a single-item scale that assesses dental
single-item questions. Single-item question scales are anxiety with the question "Are you afraid of going to
commonly used in large-scale surveys due to their ease the dentist?" with response options: 1) No, 2) A little,
of use, but they have the drawback of potentially being 3) Yes, quite, and 4) Yes, very.
perceived as ambiguous by patients, and their interpretations
can also be somewhat unclear [16]. In addition, there is DISCUSSION
a limitation that the patient's response may vary depending
on the situation or time.
The most significant influence on a patient's subsequent
1. Seattle fear survey item (Seattle, US) [32]
behavior (such as whether or not they avoid getting dental
In the 1988 US telephone survey, participants were asked treatment) is the patient's subjective experience of the
the question, "How do you rate your own feelings toward procedure [38]. Anxiety and fear towards dentistry can
dental treatment?" and were given a 5-point scale to respond, stem from various factors, including general uncertainty,
ranging from 1 (not at all afraid) to 5 (terrified). Those who influence from others' experiences, and personal
answered somewhat afraid/very afraid/terrified were classified encounters. Dentists should not overlook the possibility
as the high-fear group, while those who answered not at all that their treatment may contribute to the development
afraid/a little afraid were classified as the low-fear group. of pathological dental phobia. Due to the subjective and
ambiguous nature of anxiety and fear, various scales have
2. Visual Analogue Scale for dental anxiety (VAS)
been developed over time to assess and measure them.
(Fig. 17) [33]
The nature of dental anxiety is multi-component [6].
http://www.jdapm.org 205
Seong In Chi
(continued)
Title Year Country Items Response Scoring methods and Characteristics Strengths Weaknesses
cut off point
Shortened version of 1993 Nethe- 9 Five point likert scale Sum (range 9 to 36) The time facet was reduced to three
the DAI rlands 9-10; patient is hardly or not at all levels.
(SDAI) [23] anxious for dental treatment
11-19; patient is somewhat anxious,
or experiences anxiety for only a
specific aspect of the dental
treatment
20-27; patent is anxious and tense,
but is able to control his or her anxiety
during treatment
28-36; patient is extremely anxious
and unable to undergo normal dental
treatment
Photo Anxiety 1993 Nethe- 10 Five point rating Sum of all ratings (range 10-50) The non-verbal response scale
Questionnaire rlands (1=relaxed to includes five images of
(PAQ) [24] 5=very anxious) different-looking people.
Anxiety scores are ordered
chronologically from one month prior
to dental treatment to immediately
following dental treatment.
Dental Cognitions 1995 Nethe- 38 yes(1)/no(0) "Yes"-responses on the items are 38 negative cognitions (beliefs and
Questionnaire rlands summed self-statements) concerning dental
(DCQ) [2] Total negative cognition score care
(range 0-38) - The first section of the questionnaire
provides a list of 14 negative
presumptions about the patient and
dentistry in general
- 24 unfavorable remarks about
oneself that relate to how one thinks
while receiving treatment make up
the second segment.
Hierarchical Anxiety 1999 Germany 11 Five levels of anxiety Sum (range 11-55) Primary German instrument to screen
Questionnaire -From relaxed (1 The patients are divided into three patients with anxiety or even phobia
(HAQ) [25] points) groups: Contains six treatment situations that
-To anxious to the - Group 1 low level of anxiety to 30 illustrate the circumstances that
point of feeling ill (5 points cause patients to become anxious
points) - Group 2 medium level of anxiety the most frequently.
from 31 to 38 points
- Group 3 high level of anxiety>38
points
Fear of Dental Pain 2003 Nethe- 18 Five-point Sum (range 18-90) It focused on fear derived from 5-min. to complete the
questionnaire rlands Likert-type scale pain-related experiences. questionnaire
(FDPQ) [27] 1. notatall
2. alittle
3. afairamount
4. verymuch
5. Extremely
Short Fear of Dental 2006 Nethe- 5 Five point likert scale Sum (range 5-25)
Pain Questionnaire rlands disagree (1) to
(s-FDPQ) [29] strongly agree (5)
Index of Dental 2010 Australia 23 Five point likert scale Contains 3 modules that measure
Anxiety and Fear From disagree (1) to DAF, dental phobia, and feared dental
(IDAF-4C+) [30] strongly agree (5) stimuli
- 'C' for four components: emotional,
behavioral, physiological, and
cognitive
- '+' for the added modules: phobia
(IDAF-P) and stimulus (IDAF-S)
modules
http://www.jdapm.org 207
Seong In Chi
(continued)
Title Year Country Items Response Scoring methods and Characteristics Strengths Weaknesses
cut off point
Dental Fear and 2011 Canada 2 Ten point rating scale Subjects who scored 4 or less Designed to assess both Simple, easy to administer
Avoidance scale 1 (no fear/avoidance) out of 10 ; low or normal level cognitive and behavioural screening tool that asks
(DFAS) [31] 5 (moderate fear/ of fear or avoidance dimensions of dental anxiety to subjects to separately rate
avoidance) Scores of 5 or higher reflected distinguish individuals with their degree of fear and
10 (extreme fear/ individuals with moderate to normal anxiety from those with avoidance related to dental
avoidance) extreme anxiety, a pathological or clinically treatment
corresponding to a clinically significant level of dental
significant level of dental anxiety.
anxiety
Single item
Visual analog scale 1988 US 1 10 centimeter Left end means "totally calm Single-item surveys were It can only convey the whole
(VAS) for dental and relaxed" employed in surveys aimed feeling of dental anxiety or
anxiety [33] Right end means "Worst fear at large populations one specific component.
imaginable" primarily for the
Seattle fear survey 1988 US 1 Five point scale High-fear category convenience of research.
item - Not at all afraid - Somewhat afraid
(Seattle) [32] - A little afraid - Very afraid
- Somewhat afraid - Terrified
- Very afraid Low-fear category
- Terrified - Not at all afraid
- A little afraid
Gatchel’s 10-Point 1989 US 1 Ten point scale 1-4 = low fear
Fear Scale 1 represented “nofear” 5-7 = moderate fear
(FS) [36] 5 represented 8-10 = high fear
“moderate fear”
10 represented
“extreme fear”
Single-item Dental 1990 Norway 1 Four alternative 1 No
Anxiety Question answers 2 A little
(DAQ) [37] 3 Yes, quite
4 Yes, very
When researching the history of dentistry, we can easily could be considered the "right" answer. However, upon
find numerous pictures that depict dentists as devils or gathering and examining all the scales in one place, I
portray the fear associated with dental treatment even came to the realization that each scale approaches DAF
before the academic development of dentistry [39]. with its own set of criteria and perspectives. This is
Through these images, we can understand that patients fundamentally because DAF is an intangible concept,
already had a significant fear of dental treatment even which cannot be easily grasped or measured directly. As
before dental anxiety was quantified. This can be a result, it takes on a multicomponent nature, as it is
attributed to various factors that acted in combination, expressed in various ways and through different
such as pain, the proximity of the oral cavity to the head, components. In other words, DSAS aimed to understand
the visual fear associated with metallic instruments, the DAF based on the patient's sensations and experiences,
enduring auditory fear throughout the treatment, and the while DBS focused on the doctor-patient relationship.
tactile discomfort when instruments touch the teeth. DCQ placed greater emphasis on the cognitive aspects
According to this review, the development of dental related to dentistry, and FDPQ concentrated on the fear
anxiety scales has been ongoing since 1969 and continues induced by pain. HAQ primarily focused on situations
to the present day (Table 1). Before conducting a review known to trigger DAF in dentistry. Of course, there are
of the numerous DAF scales, I believed that there was also scales that aim to comprehensively evaluate the
no perfect scale and, therefore, no definitive scale that multicomponent aspects of DAF. Despite some limi-
tations, DAS, which is widely cited today, also aims to in the Seattle item and 95% of respondents who answered
understand DAF from multiple angles. Similarly, DAI “very much” and “much” afraid in the DFS item
considered temporal aspects, situational aspects, and answered DAS scores “≥15”. On the other hand, only
reactive aspects in order to understand DAF. In the case 34% and 50% of those who responded “somewhat afraid”
of DFS, it aimed to assess various aspects related to DAF to the Seattle and DFS items, respectively, were the same
in patients. This includes behavioral aspects such as as the subjects who answered DAS 14-12. These results
avoidance, which is commonly observed in highly showed somewhat different concordance according to the
anxious patients. Additionally, DFS evaluated the degree of anxiety.
physiological changes associated with anxiety and In a study targeting the Toronto population in Canada,
identified the dental stimuli that trigger these changes. when DAS, Seattle item, and FS were compared in the
IDAF-4C also comprehensively assesses emotional, same subject, Spearman rank correlation coefficients
physiological, behavioral, and cognitive changes between the three measures were all high and significant.
triggered by anxiety. It includes separate sections to (DAS vs Seattle; 0.78, DAS vs FS; 0.77, Seattle vs FS;
provide additional evaluation for patients displaying 0.74). However, the kappa values reveal rather low
dental phobia (IDAF-P) and for assessing dental stimuli (DAS-Seattle; 0.48, DAS-FS ; 0.56, Seattle-FS ; 0.37).
that induce DAF (IDAF-S). The number of items in the Therefore it was concluded that there is no gold standard
scales varies from 1 to 38, and responses are of dental anxiety scale [42]. This is because the
predominantly measured using a 4-5 point likert scale. emotional/physiologic/behavioral/cognitive response of
The scores for each item are aggregated to quantify the anxiety reflected in the questions for each scale is
level of patient anxiety. The development of numerous different, and as a result, patients' answers vary, which
dental anxiety scales can be seen as a series of processes can lead to differences in prevalence [43,44].
in which dentists show interest in patients' DAF. When While developing IDAF-4C+, Pearson's r correlation
dentists demonstrate concern for patients' DAF, it is with DAS and single-item dental fear (asked about the
possible that patients' DAF may be alleviated even to amount of fear or distress that would be felt if the person
some extent. were to go to a dentist now) was obtained (IDAF-DAS;
When talking about the prevalence of DAF, it cannot 0.84, IDAF-single item; 0.57, DAS-single item; 0.58)
be denied that there are, of course, cultural and racial [30].
differences. However, it is difficult to directly compare Another problem is the criterion of the cut-off point
results obtained using different measurement scales. is presented differently for each scale, and accordingly,
There are studies comparing results using different scales the prevalence may be measured more or less [42].
in the same population. When the prevalence of DAF was However, dental anxiety is a continuous concept, and it
investigated using FS and DAS among adults in large is a very important issue where to place the cut-off point
cities in Sweden, the correlation between the two was in a study to compare people with and without anxiety.
0.81 (the same subject answered each of the two scales) Therefore, it is good to investigate the patient's anxiety
[40]. level using multiple scales and consider whether the
The results of comparing DAS, summary item of DFS patient shows emotional/physiologic/behavioral/cognitive
(“In general, how fearful are you of having dental work responses due to anxiety [42], among the scales
done?”), and Seattle fear survey items for Danish adults developed later, all of these characteristics of anxiety are
were DAS-DFS (rs = 0.72), DAS-Seattle (rs = 0.68), and included in the scale [30]. However, some of these scales
DFS-Seattle (rs = 0.78) [41]. However, 78% of have the disadvantage of being somewhat complicated for
respondents who answered “terrified” and “very afraid” clinical application, and a short version is also released
http://www.jdapm.org 209
Seong In Chi
J. Factor analysis of the dental fear survey with pain questionnaire. Eur J Oral Sci 2006; 114: 204-8.
cross-validation. J Am Dent Assoc 1984; 108: 59-61. 30. Armfield JM. Development and psychometric evaluation
17. Scott DS, Hirschman R. Psychological aspects of dental of the index of dental anxiety and fear (IDAF-4C+).
anxiety in adults. J Am Dent Assoc 1982; 104: 27-31. Psychol Assess 2010; 22: 279-87.
18. Spielberger CD, Gonzalez-Reigosa F, Martinez-Urrutia A, 31. Dempster LJ, Locker D, Swinson RP. The dental fear
Natalicio LF, Natalicio DS. The state-trait anxiety and avoidance scale (DFAS): validation and application.
inventory. Interam J Psychol 1971; 5: 145-58. Can J Dent Hyg 2011; 45: 158-64.
19. Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Kleinknecht R, Getz T. Treating 32. Milgrom P, Fiset L, Melnick S, Weinstein P. The prevalence
fearful patients: A clinical handbook. Reston, va. Edited and practice management consequences of dental fear in
by, Reston Publishing Co. 1985. a major US city. J Am Dent Assoc 1988; 116: 641-7.
20. Kvale G, Berg E, Nilsen CM, Raadal M, Nielsen GH, 33. Luyk NH, Beck FM, Weaver JM. A visual analogue scale
Johnsen TB, et al. Validation of the dental fear scale and in the assessment of dental anxiety. Anesth Prog 1988;
the dental belief survey in a norwegian sample. Community 35: 121-3.
Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997; 25: 160-4. 34. Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Conrad FG, Singer E.
21. Kulich KR, Berggren U, Hakeberg M, Gustafsson JE. Evaluating the effectiveness of visual analog scales: a web
Factor structure of the dental beliefs survey in a dental experiment. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2006; 24: 227-45.
phobic population. Eur J Oral Sci 2001; 109: 235-40. 35. Maxwell C. Sensitivity and accuracy of the visual analogue
22. Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Getz T. Treating fearful dental scale: a psycho‐physical classroom experiment. Br J Clin
patients: a patient management handbook. 2nd ed. Pharmacol 1978; 6: 15-24.
Washington, Continuing Dental Education Seattle, Wash. 36. Gatchel RJ. The prevalence of dental fear and avoidance:
1995. expanded adult and recent adolescent surveys. J Am Dent
23. Stouthard ME, Groen HJ, Mellenbergh GJ. Construction Assoc 1989; 118: 591-3.
and assessment of a shortened version of the dental anxiety 37. Neverlien PO. Assessment of a single-item dental anxiety
inventory. question. Acta Odontol Scand 1990; 48: 365-9.
24. de Jongh A, Stouthard ME. Anxiety about dental hygienist 38. Jaakkola S, Rautava P, Alanen P, Aromaa M, Pienihäkkinen
treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993; 21: 91-5. K, Räihä H, et al. Dental fear: one single clinical question
25. Johren P. Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erkennung for measurement. Open Dent J 2009; 3: 161-6.
von Zahnbehandlungsangst. ZWR-Das Deutsche 39. Henry Forman A, Gordon M, Neville R. It's a gas! dentistry
Zahnarzteblatt 1999; 108: 104-14. & cartoons. Edited by Healy J. Melbourne, Henry Forman
26. Johren P, Brodowski C, Fliegel E, Wannemüller A, Bürklein Atkinson Dental Museum, University of Melbourne. 2016.
S. The hierarchical anxiety ques-tionnaire-20 years of 40. Hakeberg M, Berggren U, Carlsson SG. Prevalence of
experience in the diagnosis of dental anxiety and dental dental anxiety in an adult population in a major urban
phobia. a Systematic Literature Search i Dent Health Oral area in sweden. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;
J 2021; 3: 1-14. 20: 97-101.
27. Van Wijk AJ, Hoogstraten J. The fear of dental pain 41. Moore R, Birn H, Kirkegaard E, Brødsgaard I, Scheutz
questionnaire: construction and validity. Eur J Oral Sci F. Prevalence and characteristics of dental anxiety in danish
2003; 111: 12-8. adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993; 21: 292-6.
28. McNeil DW, Rainwater AJ 3rd. Development of the fear 42. Locker D, Shapiro D, Liddell A. Who is dentally anxious?
of pain questionnaire--III. J Behav Med 1998; 21: 389-410. Concordance between measures of dental anxiety.
29. van Wijk AJ, McNeil DW, Ho CJ, Buchanan H, Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996; 24: 346-50.
Hoogstraten J. A short english version of the fear of dental 43. Schuurs AH, Hoogstraten J. Appraisal of dental anxiety
http://www.jdapm.org 211
Seong In Chi
and fear questionnaires: a review. Community Dent Oral and in a non‐clinical student sample. Eur J Oral Sci 2006;
Epidemiol 1993; 21: 329-39. 114: 209-15.
44. Lindsay S, Jackson C. Fear of routine dental treatment 46. Stouthard ME, Hoogstraten J, Mellenbergh GJ. A study
in adults: its nature and management. Psychol Health 1993; on the convergent and discriminant validity of the dental
8: 135-53. anxiety inventory. Behav Res Ther 1995; 33: 589-95.
45. Abrahamsson KH, Hakeberg M, Stenman J, Ohrn K. 47. Lim EJ, Lim SR. Validity and reliability of the korean
Dental beliefs: evaluation of the swedish version of the version of the index of dental anxiety and fear. J Dent
revised dental beliefs survey in different patient groups Hyg Sci 2017; 17: 20-9.