Skip to main content
Download PDF

Virtual reality and behaviour management in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 995 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an innovative tool in medicine and dentistry, improving anxiety and pain management in children. The immersive and interactive environments of VR technology facilitate positive engagement of young patients during dental procedures via distraction, potentially reducing anxiety levels and improving treatment experience. The aim of this review was to provide current evidence-based guidance on the usage of VR in the clinical practice of paediatric dentistry.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines with the following research question using the PICO format: Does VR (I) effectively manage anxiety and pain (O) during a paediatric dental consultation (P) compared to alternative behavioural control techniques (C)? PubMed/Medline®, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were searched and analysed.

Results

A total of 22 randomised control trials were included in this review. These studies have shown that VR is a highly effective method of behaviour management, successfully alleviating pain and anxiety in children during dental treatment, surpassing traditional tools. Selected studies included participants with a large age range and dental procedures varied greatly, from first consultations to infiltration of local anaesthetic and other invasive procedures. VR was mostly used during treatment delivery and different immersive VR techniques were considered. Behaviour, anxiety and pain scales were used to determine efficacy and patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

VR offers an engaging and immersive experience, effectively diverting patients' attention away from the clinical environment, fostering a positive and enjoyable treatment experience. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of existing studies and the need for further research to enhance the understanding of VR's full potential in paediatric dentistry.

Peer Review reports

Background

Fear and apprehension regarding dental treatment are the most significant factors negatively impacting the daily clinical work of paediatric dentists [1]. Dental appointments can trigger anxiety and pain, leading to treatment avoidance or refusal which can worsen the patient's overall health condition. Factors contributing to dental fear and anxiety, as noted by Dahlander et al. 2019, include parental previous negative experiences, lack of information about the treatment, type of treatment, and the dental environment itself [2].

For anxious children, distraction can be an effective method of diverting the patient's attention from procedures that are considered unpleasant [3]. A variety of distraction techniques are employed to mitigate anxiety and enhance the dental experience for young patients [4]. Audiovisual distractions, such as tablet devices and smartphones, play a crucial role in engaging children and diverting attention in their daily lives [5, 6], and are widely accepted by children and parents during medical procedures [7].

With the rapid advancement of technology, audiovisual glasses emerged as a significant development in distraction techniques. These glasses allowed videos to be displayed in a two-dimensional format (2D), providing an enhanced visual experience for paediatric patients. These progressed to virtual reality glasses which unlike the 2D glasses enable the display of interactive content in a three-dimensional format (3D) [8]. This advancement immerses patients in a more realistic and engaging virtual environment, offering a heightened sense of presence and interactivity during dental procedures [9, 10].

Virtual reality creates an artificial environment that mimics the real world, allowing users to experience an alternate world [11, 12]. The virtual experience provides multi-sensory information through synchronization between the head-mounted display helmet (provides an image with a sense of space and depth), motion sensors, headphones and joysticks, for a fully immersive simulation [13].

During the past two decades, virtual reality technologies have been used for entertainment [14], education [15], training [16], research [17] and much more. Virtual reality technology is becoming increasingly accessible and powerful, and the potential uses are virtually limitless [18, 19].

In the medical field, as an effective and efficient tool to prevent emotional disorders such as anxiety [20] and physical impairments in rehabilitation processes [21], and lately as a method of pain reduction [22, 23]. Like doctors, nurses and dentists in training, allowing them to experience real medical situations before treating real patients [24, 25].

In dentistry, although not yet widespread, VR has proven to be a beneficial tool for clinical practice in several specialties [26]. From student training [25, 27] to predicting surgical complications [28], doctors can use virtual reality technology to show their patients the expected results before undergoing the procedure [29].

In paediatrics, VR can be effective for oral hygiene education and maintenance, reduction of anxiety and pain [30, 31].

Also, using virtual reality devices during consultation/ treatment visits allow patients to virtually experience the entire scenario before the commencement of the actual procedure. Thus, enabling a better understanding of the treatment and allowing fears to be confronted in a safe and controlled environment [32, 33].

In recent years, virtual reality has gained popularity in clinical research studies as an innovative technique for modulating paediatric behaviour [19, 27, 34]. According to McCaul et al. 1992, the perception and attention to pain play crucial roles in pain experience. VR does not directly impact the pathophysiological mechanisms of pain but rather focuses on modifying patients' perception and attention to pain [35].

While VR in dentistry is not yet widely adopted, it has demonstrated considerable benefits across various specialties [26]. This systematic review aims to explore the current available evidence on the use of VR for controlling pain and anxiety in children during dental consultations.

Methodology

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [36], and the research question was formulated using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format. The objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) in controlling anxiety and pain during dental appointments in the paediatric population (P), in comparison to other behavioural control techniques (C).

The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD4202340967. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in January 2023, using the PubMed/Medline®, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. The search results were exported to the Parsifal bibliography manager software, where duplicates were removed and articles were selected based on the defined objective and criteria (Table 1).

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

The search strategy employed a combination of subject heading terms, keywords and text words, utilizing Boolean operators such as 'OR' and 'AND' (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2 Search strategy in PubMed
Full size table
Table 3 Search strategy in Scopus and Web of Science
Full size table

Two independent researchers (DP and PC) performed the search and screening procedure for this systematic review, following the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the event of any disagreement between the researchers, a third researcher (AM) was consulted to resolve it.

To assess agreement and reliability between researchers, Cohen's Kappa coefficient was employed. The coefficient ranges from -1 to 1, with values closer to 1 indicating higher agreement between reviewers and values closer to -1 indicating greater disagreement.

Data extracted included author, year, study design, sample size, age, dental procedure, intervention used, timing of intervention, control/comparison groups, outcomes and outcome measures.

The quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), (Additional file 1: Appendix 1) [37].

Results

Study selection

The search queries yielded a total of 525 abstracts from three different databases. After removing 79 duplicate articles, 446 unique abstracts remained. Upon reviewing the titles and abstracts, 392 records were deemed irrelevant and excluded. Subsequently, 54 articles were selected for full-text analysis. Among these, 32 articles were excluded as they utilized audiovisual glasses without 3D immersion. Ultimately, 22 articles were considered suitable for inclusion in this systematic review (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA search strategy

Full size image

As stated in Fig. 1, inter-rater agreement, was determined and a kappa value of 1 was obtained during the selection process, indicating an excellent agreement.

Study characteristics

This analysis included 22 studies conducted in various countries, including Turkey, Iran, India, China, Jordan, Spain, Syria, Italy and Indonesia. All of these studies were randomised control trials [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. Tables 4, 5 and 6 offer a comprehensive overview of the studies characteristics: authors, publication date, country, study type, participants number and ages and study outcomes. The VR equipment utilized in the studies was also included. Out of the 22 studies, two (9%) investigated the use of the Oculus Go device, which is a standalone virtual reality headset [41, 58]. Additionally, four studies (18%) selected a VR Box device and two chose a HTC device, an all-in-one headset [38, 42, 45, 55, 57, 59]. In four studies, the VR device utilized was not specified [39, 52, 53, 56]. The remaining studies, as shown in Tables 4, 5 and 6, employed various other devices that were not replicated in other research. Overall, these devices demonstrated high resolution, light weight and compact size.

Table 4 Summary of results (A1-A8)
Full size table
Table 5 Summary of results (A9-A17)
Full size table
Table 6 Summary of results (A18-A22)
Full size table

For each study, the risk of bias was assessed with the NOS scale (Additional file 1: Appendix 2). Two studies had a very low risk of bias [50, 55], thirteen studies had a moderate risk of bias [38,39,40,41,42, 47, 49, 51, 52, 55,56,57,58] and seven had a high risk of bias [43,44,45,46, 48, 53, 54].

The studies investigated the effectiveness of different immersive VR techniques, compared to various behavioural control techniques in paediatric dentistry: passive distraction, the tell-show-do technique [38, 40, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48, 51, 53,54,55,56,57,58,59], including digital screen and audio-visual distraction [39, 41, 49, 50, 52, 56]. The total number of participants involved in the studies was 2,558, with most studies focusing on children aged between 5 and 12 years. However, some studies included children within narrower age ranges, such as 7–9 years or 5–8 years.

The evaluated dental procedures varied across the studies, ranging from the delivery of local anaesthesia, to pulp therapy, tooth extractions and dental restorations. Some studies focused on specific procedures, such as inferior alveolar nerve blocks, while others assessed intervention effectiveness in a variety of dental procedures, or cooperation at the first dental appointment (Table 7).

Table 7 Summary of dental procedures
Full size table

In this systematic review, different models and brands of VR glasses were observed. Five out of 22 articles included did not specify the VR device used [39, 52, 53, 56, 57], which prevented data comparisons, based on the devices´ specifications, such as size, weight, comfort, or safety indications.

Results summary

The majority of the studies compared the usage of VR with an alternative technique, during a dental procedure or initial consultation (peri-operatively), except one [39] where the control group included pre-operative exposure to a dental simulation game.

In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were anxiety and pain management in a paediatric dental consultation. In the selected studies, several scales were used for preliminary behaviour assessment and anxiety and pain evaluation, during the dental appointment. It was observed that anxiety was the most investigated aspect, 16 studies [38,39,40,41, 44, 46,47,48,49,50,51, 53, 55,56,57, 59], while pain perception was addressed in 12 studies [40,41,42,43, 45, 49,50,51,52, 54, 55, 58, 59]. Scales for anxiety and pain measurement depend on the child´s age and development, hence the variety encountered in the reported studies, as there was a wide age range of participants, from pre-schoolers to pre-teenagers. The referred anxiety scales were CPMAS, MCDAS, MCDAS(f)-r, FIS, VPT and the described pain scales were WBFS, VAS, FLACC, MBPS (Table 8). Some studies also included objective physiological parameters, such as salivary cortisol [40, 59], pulse oximeter [46, 49, 55] and pulse rate [47, 50, 51, 53, 55,56,57]. In a small number of studies, other aspects were also evaluated, such as fear [42, 45] and cybersickness, nausea and fun [54].

Table 8 Measurement scales and protocols
Full size table

Overall, the benefit of VR in controlling anxiety and pain was statistically significant in the included studies, as compared to the corresponding control group, with some exceptions [43, 49, 50, 58]. For instance, VR was comparable to other distraction techniques, such as in Felemban et al. [49], where VR had a similar effect to screen distraction on heart-rate levels and pain during buccal infiltration anaesthesia. In the study by Al-Halabi [50], tablets performed better than VR in relieving anxiety and pain during inferior alveolar nerve block. In two studies, the benefit was not noticed in all the dental procedures, such as in Alshatrat et al. [43], where there was no statistically significant reduction of pain in non-painful dental procedures and Zaidman et al. [58] where VR decreased pain perception during rubber dam placement, but had limited benefit during local anaesthesia.

Özükoç et al. found that children with MIH-affected teeth who are distracted from dental procedures using 3D VR games experienced less dental anxiety (p < 0.05) [38]. Concerning short time appointments, Shetty et al., Ran et al. and Kaswindiarti et al., showed a significant reduction in pain, anxiety [40, 42, 59], salivary cortisol (p < 0.001) [40, 59] and a shorter treatment time [42]. Regarding delivery of intraoral anaesthesia, MCDAS, VAS and WBFS improved in the immersive VR group [40]. Others presented similar results [39, 45, 47, 50,51,52, 54, 57]. High levels of satisfaction from children who experienced treatment with 3D video glasses were observed in the study by Nuvvula et al. [47] and increased fun during dental procedures was reported by the participant children in the study of Atzori et al. [54].

Discussion

This systematic review focuses on comparing the use of VR with conventional non-pharmacological behavioural management techniques in paediatric dental consultations. The selected articles covered various dental procedures such as dental examination, restorations, pulp treatment and anaesthesia. VR was mostly used perioperatively, i.e. simultaneously to treatment delivery. Behaviour, anxiety and pain scales were used to determine efficacy and patient satisfaction. There is strong evidence of the success of VR as a behaviour management tool, in the paediatric dental setting, which in many instances rates superior to conventional behaviour management techniques.

The studies included in this review examined different behavioural control techniques in paediatric dentistry. Conventional techniques were used as a control group in all studies. Some studies used only VR as a test group, while others using a combination of VR with additional techniques like audio, digital screens and smartphone games. Interestingly, none of the studies demonstrated that traditional non-screen techniques were more effective than the tested techniques in reducing anxiety and pain perception. This can be attributed to VR's ability to divert patients' attention to a pleasant virtual environment, thereby modifying the patient perception of physical pain.Three studies A12 [49], A13 [50] and A15 [52] compared the use of digital flat panel devices with VR devices as methods of distraction during local anaesthesia administration. One study A15 [52] found VR devices to be more effective in reducing pain perception compared to other groups. However, two other studies A12 [49] and A13 [50] concluded that tablets provided greater relief from anxiety and pain during anaesthesia. It's important to consider variables that influence children's experiences during dental procedures, such as the type of anaesthesia and the technology (tablet or smartphone) they are familiar with.

Three studies conducted in India A10 [47], A19 [56] and A20 [57] compared the use of VR and audio. Results showed that both audio and VR distraction were effective in reducing anxiety, compared to the conventional "Tell-Show-Do" technique. However, VR proved to be more effective in reducing anxiety and pain perception. While music distraction in the dental environment is widely adopted, VR presents itself as a viable alternative. Only one study A19 [56] included smartphone games alongside VR. It suggested that VR and smartphone gaming were the most effective distraction techniques for managing negative behaviour in paediatric dental patients. When comparing the effectiveness of these techniques, VR distraction was found to be more effective than smartphone game distraction. The VR provided simultaneously an immersive and interactive experience which is likely to have contributed to its greater effectiveness.

One study A4 [41] compared the effect of immersive and non-immersive VR on pain perception during intraoral injections. Both distraction methods were effective in reducing pain perception, with immersive VR slightly more effective. However, the study had limitations such as a small sample size and pain assessment immediately after the injection. Further research is needed to assess the impact of VR distraction in different time points and in a larger sample.

While VR glasses can improve patient cooperation, other factors need to be addressed, such as costs, communication issues, dentists’ perceptions. Some top range VR appliances are expensive; however, prices have become more accessible. VR can also interfere with communication between the dentist and patient during complex procedures, potentially impairing diagnosis and treatment. Vision blockage and absence of caregivers in the visual field can increase children's anxiety [57]. However, one study A17 [54] reported a positive experience of dentists who used VR, feeling more relaxed and focused on their work. Additionally, communication with patients was not affected, despite the use of headsets. Overall, these issues need to be considered when evaluating the use of VR in dentistry.

The increasing use of VR headsets raises health concerns. Prolonged use can lead to eyestrain, dry eyes, vision problems, migraines, dizziness, motion sickness and risk of photosensitive epilepsy. Responsible use of VR headsets is critical to ensure patients' well-being [58, 59] and informed consent needs to be obtained before the use of any VR device on patients..

The appropriate age for using digital equipment, including smartphones and tablets and VR, has been debated, and requires further studies evaluating its long-term effects across different age groups [5, 60]. Immersive media hardware companies have established safety recommendations, with Sony Interactive Entertainment [61], Oculus [62], PlayStation [63] and Samsung [64] stating that their products are not recommended for children under 12 or 13 years old. LG [65] sets the highest age limit at 15, while HTC [66], examined in study A5 [42], has the lowest limit of 4 years without a "safe mode." All articles in this systematic review used VR glasses in children below the manufacturers' recommendations, except for studies without specified equipment brands.

To mitigate adverse effects, researchers have explored strategies such as oculomotor exercises before using VR glasses which have shown effectiveness in reducing cybersickness and associated symptoms. [67]. Taking breaks during VR use is also recommended to prevent digital eye strain, as recommended by the UK Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, in 2020 [68]. However, reviewed studies did not include a specific protocol for preventing eye injuries related to VR glasses.

Assessing cybersickness is crucial as it can cause discomfort and symptoms like nausea, dizziness, headache, eyestrain and general discomfort. It significantly impacts the user experience and may limit the effectiveness of VR applications [58]. However, among the selected articles, only one A8 [45] evaluated cybersickness.

The cost of 3D immersion devices varies based on the type of glasses chosen. Cardboard glasses, the most economical option, use the smartphone screen for display [69, 70]. High-end glasses offer better immersion quality, have their own software and hardware, but still utilize the smartphone as a screen [9]. Gaming glasses are the most expensive and required a computer connection. They are primarily sought after by professional players for superior performance but acquiring them for a dental appointment may not be justified [71, 72]. Overall, VR appears to be a promising behaviour management technique for managing anxiety and reducing pain. However, further studies are needed to compare VR with pharmacological behaviour methods, such as conscious sedation, and to assess its potential for reducing referrals for general anaesthesia. Both VR and pharmacological methods carry a significant financial burden and additional health risks [22, 32].

Video games and digital games served as VR content in some studies [38, 40]. Despite the positive outcomes, patient movement can sometimes interfere with dental examinations or treatments. An emerging application in dentistry is the use of serious games (SGs). These games are increasingly utilized for medical education, training and informative purposes to convey oral health messages [73,74,75]. In this systematic review, the overall quality of the evidence is good. However, there are certain limitations due to the use of diverse pain and anxiety scales in the included studies which makes direct comparisons difficult. Certain studies included participants with diverse developmental stages, due to the presence of significant age intervals within the sample. Information regarding participants' prior experience with virtual reality (VR) needed to be recorded and participants´ track behaviour during dental appointments was not known. Future research should incorporate qualitative studies to explore patient-reported outcomes and investigate the long-term effects of VR on anxiety and pain. Additionally, details regarding device specifications, screen content and screen time were sometimes omitted or incomplete.

Conclusion

This systematic review has shown that virtual reality technology during dental treatment is an effective tool for reducing anxiety and pain in children when compared to conventional behavioural management techniques. By creating an engaging and immersive experience, VR successfully shifts the patients' focus away from the clinical environment, resulting in a more positive and enjoyable treatment experience. Therefore, it is crucial that dental professionals become familiar with VR as a valuable tool in the management of paediatric patients. Further research is required to determine the sustained benefits of VR and its integration into routine clinical practice.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PICO:

Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome

MeSH:

Medical subject headings

NOS:

Newcastle Ottawa scale;

HMD:

Head Mounted Devices

FIS:

Facial Image Scale:

MCDAS:

Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale:

SCARED:

Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders;

WBFS:

Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale;

VAS:

Visual Analog Scale;

FLACC scale:

Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability’ scale;

VPT:

Venham's picture test;

MBPS:

Modified Behavioural Pain Scale

SGs:

Serious Games

References

  1. Yon MJY, Chen KJ, Gao SS, Duangthip D, Lo ECM, Chu CH. An Introduction to Assessing Dental Fear and Anxiety in Children. Healthcare (Basel). 2020;8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8020086.

  2. Dahlander A, Soares F, Grindefjord M, Dahllöf G. Factors Associated with Dental Fear and Anxiety in Children Aged 7 to 9 Years. Dent J. 2019;1;7(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7030068.

  3. Blumer S, Peretz B, Yukler N, Nissan S. Dental Anxiety, Fear and Anxiety of Performing Dental Treatments among Dental Students during Clinical Studies. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020;44(6):407–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu Y, Gu Z, Wang Y, Wu Q, Chen V, Xu X, et al. Effect of audiovisual distraction on the management of dental anxiety in children: A systematic review. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019;29:14–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lauricella AR, Wartella E, Rideout VJ. Young children’s screen time: The complex role of parent and child factors. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2015;36:11–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Radesky JS, Weeks HM, Ball R, Schaller A, Yeo S, Durnez J, et al. Young Children's Use of Smartphones and Tablets. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3518.

  7. Shukla H, Kulkarni S, Wasnik MB, Rojekar N, Bhattad D, Kolekar P. Acceptance of Parents for Behavior Management Technique with Reference to Previous Dental Expertise and Dental Anxiety. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(S2):S193–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Guinot F, Mercadé M, Oprysnyk L, Veloso A, Boj JR. Comparison of active versus passive audiovisual distraction tools on children’s behaviour, anxiety and pain in paediatric dentistry: a randomised crossover clinical trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2021;22(3):230–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Angelov V, Petkov E, Shipkovenski G, Kalushkov T. Modern Virtual Reality Headsets. 2020 International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA); 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/HORA49412.2020.9152604.

  10. Andonova V, Artuo M, Ramírez J, Carrasquilla D. Does multisensory stimulation with virtual reality (VR) and smell improve learning? An educational experience in recall and creativity. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Monterubbianesi R, Tosco V, Vitiello F, Orilisi G, Fraccastoro F, Putignano A, et al. Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Reality in Dentistry: A Narrative Review on the Existing Platforms and Future Challenges. Appl Sci. 2022;12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020877.

  12. Xiong J, Hsiang EL, He Z, Zhan T, Wu ST. Augmented reality and virtual reality displays: emerging technologies and future perspectives. Light Sci Appl. 2021;10:216. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-021-00658-8.

  13. Bamodu O, Ye XM. Virtual reality and virtual reality system components. In: Advanced Materials Research. 2013;1169–72. https://doi.org/10.2991/icsem.2013.192.

  14. Spence C. Scenting Entertainment: Virtual Reality Storytelling, Theme Park Rides, Gambling, and Video-Gaming. iPerception. 2021;12(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211034538.

  15. Alalwan N, Cheng L, Al-Samarraie H, Yousef R, Ibrahim Alzahrani A, Sarsam SM. Challenges and Prospects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality Utilization among Primary School Teachers: A Developing Country Perspective. Stud Educ Eval. 2020;1:66.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Woon APN, Mok WQ, Chieng YJS, Zhang HM, Ramos P, Mustadi HB, et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality training in improving knowledge among nursing students: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104655.

  17. Bell IH, Nicholas J, Alvarez-Jimenez M, Thompson A, Valmaggia L. Virtual reality as a clinical tool in mental health research and practice. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2020;22(2):169–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Javaid M, Haleem A. Virtual reality applications toward medical field. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2020;8(2):600–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Laghari A, Jumani K, Kumar K, Chhajro MA. Systematic analysis of virtual reality and augmented reality. Int J Inf Eng Electron Bus. 2021;13(1):36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boeldt D, McMahon E, McFaul M, Greenleaf W. Using virtual reality exposure therapy to enhance treatment of anxiety disorders: identifying areas of clinical adoption and potential obstacles. Front Psychiatry. 2019;25:10.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Elor A, Kurniawan S. The ultimate display for physical rehabilitation: a bridging review on immersive virtual reality. Front Virtual Real. 2020;1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.585993.

  22. Chuan A, Zhou JJ, Hou RM, Stevens CJ, Bogdanovych A. Virtual reality for acute and chronic pain management in adult patients: a narrative review. Anaesthesia. 2021;76:695–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Spiegel B, Fuller G, Lopez M, Dupuy T, Noah B, Howard A, et al. Virtual reality for management of pain in hospitalized patients: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial. PLoS One. 2019;14(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219115.

  24. Plotzky C, Lindwedel U, Sorber M, Loessl B, König P, Kunze C, et al. Virtual reality simulations in nurse education: A systematic mapping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;101:104910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hattori A, Tonami K, Tsuruta J, Hideshima M, Kimura Y, Nitta H, et al. Effect of the haptic 3D virtual reality dental training simulator on assessment of tooth preparation. J Dent Sci. 2022;17(1):514–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Haleem A, Javaid M, Khan IH. Virtual reality (VR) applications in dentistry: An innovative technology to embrace. Indian J Dent Res. 2020;31(5):666–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Moussa R, Alghazaly A, Althagafi N, Eshky R, Borzangy S. Effectiveness of Virtual Reality and Interactive Simulators on Dental Education Outcomes: Systematic Review. Eur J Dent. 2022;16(1):14–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Xia J, Ip HHS, Samman N, Wong HTF, Gateno J, Wang D, et al. Three-dimensional virtual-reality surgical planning and soft-tissue prediction for orthognathic surgery. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2001;5(2):97–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ayoub A, Pulijala Y. The application of virtual reality and augmented reality in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Genaro LE, Marconato JV, Hanai D, Pawloski CLG, Capote TS de O. Virtual Reality in Oral Hygiene Instruction: an Immersive Approach. Odovtos Int J Dent Sci. 2022;24(1):177–87.

  31. Constantini Leopardi A, Adanero Velasco A, Espí Mayor M, Miegimolle HM. Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Goggles as Distraction for Children in Dental Care—A Narrative Review. Appl Sci (Switzerland). 2023;13(6):2511.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Eijlers R, Utens EMWJ, Staals LM, De Nijs PFA, Berghmans JM, Wijnen RMH, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Virtual Reality in Pediatrics: Effects on Pain and Anxiety. Anesth Analg. 2019;129(4):1344–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Park JW, Nahm FS, Kim JH, Jeon YT, Ryu JH, Han SH. The Effect of Mirroring Display of Virtual Reality Tour of the Operating Theatre on Preoperative Anxiety: A Randomized Controlled Trial. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2019;23(6):2655–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Barteit S, Lanfermann L, Bärnighausen T, Neuhann F, Beiersmann C. Augmented, mixed, and virtual reality-based head-mounted devices for medical education: systematic review. JMIR Serious Games. 2021;9(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/29080.

  35. McCaul KD, Monson N, Maki RH. Does Distraction Reduce Pain-Produced Distress Among College Students? Health Psychol. 1992;11(4):210–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaf J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hosp Res Inst. 2000. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Last accessed 22/06/2023.

  38. Özükoç C. Reducing anxiety in children with molar incisor hypomineralization using virtual reality – A randomized crossover study. C R Acad Bulg Sci. 2020;73(11):1600–8.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Baniebrahimi G, Khosravinejad A, Paryab M, Kharazifard MJ. Effects of Virtual Reality Versus Game Applications on Children’s Dental Fear: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Pediatr-Mashhad. 2022;10(12):17068–76.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Shetty V, Suresh LR, Hegde AM. Effect of virtual reality distraction on pain and anxiety during dental treatment in 5 to 8 year old children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;43(2):97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kumari S, Bahuguna R, Garg N, Yeluri R. Immersive and Non-Immersive Virtual Reality Distraction on Pain Perception to Intraoral Injections. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;45(6):389–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ran L, Zhao N, Fan L, Zhou P, Zhang C, Yu C. Application of virtual reality on non-drug behavioral management of short-term dental procedure in children. Trials. 2021;22(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Alshatrat SM, Sabarini JM, Hammouri HM, Al-Bakri IA, Al-Omari WM. Effect of immersive virtual reality on pain in different dental procedures in children: A pilot study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2022;32(2):264–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gómez-Polo C, Vilches AA, Ribas D, Castaño-Séiquer A, Montero J. Behaviour and Anxiety Management of Paediatric Dental Patients through Virtual Reality: A Randomised Clinical Trial. J Clin Med. 2021;10(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10143019.

  45. Du Q, Ma X, Wang S, Zhou S, Luo C, Tian K, et al. A digital intervention using virtual reality helmets to reduce dental anxiety of children under local anesthesia and primary teeth extraction: A randomized clinical trial. Brain Behav. 2022;12(6):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Aditya PVA, Prasad MG, Nagaradhakrishna A, Raju NS, Babu DN. Comparison of effectiveness of three distraction techniques to allay dental anxiety during inferior alveolar nerve block in children: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Heliyon. 2021;7(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08092.

  47. Nuvvula S, Alahari S, Kamatham R, Challa RR. Effect of audiovisual distraction with 3D video glasses on dental anxiety of children experiencing administration of local analgesia: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015;16(1):43–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Murali K, Shankar S, Fathima A. Impact of Virtual Reality Distraction Technique on Dental Anxiety during short Dental Procedure among 5–8 Years Children: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2021;11:56–9.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Felemban OM, Alshamrani RM, Aljeddawi DH, Bagher SM. Effect of virtual reality distraction on pain and anxiety during infiltration anesthesia in pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01678-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Al-Halabi MN, Bshara N, AlNerabieah Z. Effectiveness of audiovisual distraction using virtual reality eyeglasses versus tablet device in child behavioral management during inferior alveolar nerve block. Anaesthesia, Pain and Intensive Care. 2018;22(1):55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Buldur B, Candan M. Does virtual reality affect children’s dental anxiety, pain, and behaviour? A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr. 2020;2020(21):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sharma Y, Bhatia HP, Sood S, Sharma N, Singh A. Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Glasses Digital Screens and Verbal Command as a Method to Distract Young Patients during Administration of Local Anesthesia. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(S2):S143–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Daa Khan S, Dinesh RB, Jasuja P, Malik S, Mesfer S, Al Yami H, et al. Passive Distraction: a Technique to Maintain Children's Behavior Undergoing Dental Treatment. http://www.iajps.com

  54. Atzori B, Grotto RL, Giugni A, Calabrò M, Alhalabi W, Hoffman HG. Virtual reality analgesia for pediatric dental patients. Front Psychol. 2018;9(NOV):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Niharika P, Venugopal Reddy N, Srujana P, Srikanth K, Daneswari V, Sai GK. Effects of distraction using virtual reality technology on pain perception and anxiety levels in children during pulp therapy of primary molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2018;36(4):364–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Pande P, Rana V, Srivastava N, Kaushik N. Effectiveness of different behavior guidance techniques in managing children with negative behavior in a dental setting: A randomized control study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2020;38(3):259–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Greeshma SG, George S, Anandaraj S, Sain S, Jose D, Sreenivas A, et al. Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Virtual Reality Distraction, Audio Distraction and Tell-show-do Techniques in Reducing the Anxiety Level of Pediatric Dental Patients: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021;14(S2):S173–8.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zaidman L, Lusky G, Shmueli A, Halperson E, Moskovitz M, Ram D, et al. Distraction With Virtual Reality Goggles in Paediatric Dental Treatment: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Int Dent J. 2023;73(1):108–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2022.06.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kaswindiarti S, Hanun Nisa B, Khoirudin FI, Pari Purnomo Sari WA. The effect of virtual reality distraction on pain perception of children aged 7–9 years during anesthesia procedure with the jet injector in dental treatment. Rev Latinoam Hipertens. 2022;17(2):94–8.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Almeida A, Rebelo F, Noriega P, Vilar E. Virtual Reality Self Induced Cybersickness: An Exploratory Study. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT. 2019;26–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60582-1_3.

  61. Tychsen L, Thio LL. Concern of photosensitive seizures evoked by 3D video displays or virtual reality headsets in children: Current perspective. Eye Brain. 2020;12:45–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Saunders TJ, Vallance JK. Screen Time and Health Indicators Among Children and Youth: Current Evidence, Limitations and Future Directions. Appl Health Econ Health Policy [Internet]. 2017;15(3):323–31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0289-3

  63. Sony Interactive Entertainment. Health warnings. San Mateo, CA: Sony Interactive Entertainment; 2023. https://sonyinteractive.com/en/impact/online-safety/. Last accessed 22/06/2023.

  64. Oculus. Oculus terms of service. Menlo Park, CA: Facebook Technologies LLC; 2018. https://www.oculus.com/legal/terms-of-service/. Last accessed 22/06/2023.

  65. Playstation. Health Warning. San Mateo, CA: Sony Interactive Entertainment; 2020. https://www.playstation.com/en-dk/legal/health-warning/. Last accessed 22/06/2023.

  66. Samsung. Is the Gear VR safe for children? Suwon: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; 2020. https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/is-the-gear-vr-safe-for-children/. Last accessed 22/06/2023.

  67. LG. User Guide 360 VR LG-R100 MFL69543701 (1.0). Seoul: LG Corporation; 2017. https://www.lg.com/us/support/products/documents/R100_US_UM_V1.0_Print_G_160317-1.pdf. Last accessed 22/06/2023.

  68. CNET. HTC adds kid safety modes to VR with Vive Guardian. Bellevue, CA: CNET; 2022. https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/htc-adds-kid-safety-modes-to-vr-with-vive-guardian/. Last accessed 22/06/2023.

  69. Park WD, Jang SW, Kim YH, Kim GA, Son W, Kim YS. A study on cyber sickness reduction by oculo-motor exercise performed immediately prior to viewing virtual reality (VR) content on head-mounted display (HMD). In: Vibroengineering Procedia. EXTRICA; 2017. p. 260–4. https://doi.org/10.21595/vp.2017.19170.

  70. UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. The safety of domestic virtual reality systems: A literature review. 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-of-domestic-virtual-reality-systems. Last accessed 22/06/2023.

  71. Kesselman M. Current CITE-ings from the popular and trade computing literature: Google Cardboard – virtual reality for everyone. Library Hi Tech News. 2016;33(4):15–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-04-2016-0020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Cardboard G. A virtual reality headset for $10? Phys Teach. 2015;53(2):125–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Primack BA, Carroll MV, McNamara M, et al. Role of video games in improving health-related outcomes: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42:630–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. DeSmet A, Van Ryckeghem D, Compernolle S, et al. A meta-analysis of serious digital games for healthy life-style promotion. Prev Med. 2014;69:95–107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Zaror C, Mariño R, Atala-Acevedo C. Current State of Serious Games in Dentistry: A Scoping Review. Games Health J. 2021;10(2):95–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thankfully acknowledge the InDig—Innovation and digital teaching technologies in Dental Medicine (POCH-02-53I2-FSE-000025), jointly funded by the European Social Fund via the Programa Operacional Capital Humano (POCH).

Funding

This work is financially supported by National Funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the project UIDB/04279/2020.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 3504-505, Viseu, Portugal

    Diana Xavier de Barros Padilha, Nélio Jorge Veiga, Anna Carolina Volpi Mello-Moura & Patrícia Nunes Correia

  2. Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Health (CIIS), Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 3504-505, Viseu, Portugal

    Nélio Jorge Veiga, Anna Carolina Volpi Mello-Moura & Patrícia Nunes Correia

Authors
  1. Diana Xavier de Barros Padilha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nélio Jorge Veiga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Carolina Volpi Mello-Moura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrícia Nunes Correia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DBP made substantial contributions to the design of the work; data acquisition, analysis and interpretation and has drafted the manuscript. AMM and NV made substantial contributions to the design of the work; interpretation of data and have substantively revised the manuscript. PC made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; data acquisition, analysis and interpretation and has substantively revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrícia Nunes Correia.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. 

Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS): Randomised Control Trial. Risk of bias of included studies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barros Padilha, D.X.d., Veiga, N.J., Mello-Moura, A.C.V. et al. Virtual reality and behaviour management in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 23, 995 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03595-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03595-7

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us