Dental Anxiety and Trust-Building in Technology-Assisted Oral Care: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

Zheng Yerong; Florenly; Shieny

doi:10.61919/0yqseq90

Authors

Zheng Yerong Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universitas Prima, Indonesia Author
Florenly Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universitas Prima, Indonesia Author
Shieny Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universitas Prima, Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61919/0yqseq90

Keywords:

dental anxiety; digital dentistry; trust; teledentistry; artificial intelligence; technology-assisted oral care

Abstract

Background: Dental anxiety remains an important barrier to preventive and timely oral healthcare. Although technology-assisted dentistry, including digital radiography, intraoral scanning, teledentistry, artificial intelligence-supported interpretation and virtual reality distraction, may improve communication, access and patient comfort, anxious patients may also experience these tools as unfamiliar, intrusive, costly or poorly explained. Qualitative inquiry is needed to understand how patients interpret digital dental tools in relation to fear, control, privacy, cost and trust. Objective: To explore how adults with dental anxiety perceive technology-assisted oral care, identify barriers and facilitators influencing acceptance, and examine how explanation, consent, professional accountability and relational care shape trust. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study used 12 anonymised participant accounts from adult dental patients who reported anxiety, fear, hesitation or discomfort related to dental care and technology-assisted tools. Accounts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, combining deductive coding informed by dental anxiety, consent, privacy and technology acceptance with inductive coding of participant meanings. Results: Six themes were identified: fear of pain, gagging and loss of control; explanation as the basis of trust; visualisation as reassurance and exposure; privacy, AI and data uncertainty; cost and access as trust signals; and relational care as the overarching trust-builder. Technology-assisted care was more acceptable when patients received clear explanations, stop signals, privacy clarification, cost transparency and visible clinician accountability. It became more anxiety-provoking when tools were unfamiliar, intrusive, financially unclear or perceived as replacing human care. Conclusion: Technology-assisted oral care should be implemented through a trust-first approach that combines digital competence with anxiety-sensitive communication, meaningful consent, patient control, privacy safeguards, cost transparency and non-judgemental relational care.

References

1. World Health Organization. Global oral health status report: towards universal health coverage for oral health by 2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.

2. Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):249-260. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31146-8.

3. Bernabe E, Marcenes W, Hernandez CR, Bailey J, Abreu LG, Alipour V, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in burden of oral conditions from 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease 2017 Study. J Dent Res. 2020;99(4):362-373. doi:10.1177/0022034520908533.

4. Silveira ER, Cademartori MG, Schuch HS, Armfield JA, Demarco FF, Correa MB. Estimated prevalence of dental fear in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2021;108:103632. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103632.

5. Aardal V, Evensen KB, Willumsen T, Bull VH. The complexity of dental anxiety and its association with oral health-related quality of life: an exploratory study. Eur J Oral Sci. 2023;131(1):e12907. doi:10.1111/eos.12907.

6. Armfield JM. What goes around comes around: revisiting the hypothesized vicious cycle of dental fear and avoidance. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41(3):279-287. doi:10.1111/cdoe.12005.

7. Siqueira R, Galli M, Chen Z, Mendonca G, Meirelles L, Wang HL, et al. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(12):6517-6531. doi:10.1007/s00784-021-04157-3.

8. Yilmaz H, Konca FA, Aydin MN. An updated comparison of current impression techniques regarding time, comfort, anxiety, and preference: a randomized crossover trial. Turk J Orthod. 2021;34(4):227-233. doi:10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2021.21025.

9. Kengne Talla P, Allison P, Bussieres A, Rodrigues A, Bergeron F, Giraudeau N, et al. Teledentistry for improving access to, and quality of oral health care: overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e65211. doi:10.2196/65211.

10. Schwendicke F, Samek W, Krois J. Artificial intelligence in dentistry: chances and challenges. J Dent Res. 2020;99(7):769-774. doi:10.1177/0022034520915714.

11. Khanagar SB, Al-Ehaideb A, Maganur PC, Vishwanathaiah S, Patil S, Baeshen HA, et al. Developments, application, and performance of artificial intelligence in dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Sci. 2021;16(1):508-522. doi:10.1016/j.jds.2020.06.019.

12. Mallineni SK, Sethi M, Punugoti D, Kotha SB, Alkhayal Z, Mubaraki S, et al. Artificial intelligence in dentistry: a descriptive review. Bioengineering (Basel). 2024;11(12):1267. doi:10.3390/bioengineering11121267.

13. Hao T, Pang J, Liu Q, Xin P. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of virtual reality, audiovisuals and music interventions for reducing dental anxiety related to tooth extraction. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:684. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03407-y.

14. Fan L, Zeng J, Ran L, Zhang C, Wang J, Yu C, et al. Virtual reality in managing dental pain and anxiety: a comprehensive review. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1285142. doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1285142.

15. Birkhauer J, Gaab J, Kossowsky J, Hasler S, Krummenacher P, Werner C, et al. Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170988. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170988.

16. Rowe R, Calnan M. Trust relations in health care: developing a theoretical framework for the new NHS. J Health Organ Manag. 2006;20(5):376-396. doi:10.1108/14777260610701777.

17. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019.

18. General Medical Council. Decision making and consent. London: General Medical Council; 2020.

19. Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V, et al. AI4People: an ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds Mach. 2018;28(4):689-707. doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.

20. World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

21. Nouri S, Khoong EC, Lyles CR, Karliner L. Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv. 2020;1(3). doi:10.1056/CAT.20.0123.

22. Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Monogr. 1974;2(4):328-335. doi:10.1177/109019817400200403.

23. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319-340. doi:10.2307/249008.

24. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425-478. doi:10.2307/30036540.

25. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.

26. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London: SAGE; 2021.

27. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):846-854. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030.

28. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.

29. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research: a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.

30. Ozawa S, Sripad P. How do you measure trust in the health system? A systematic review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 2013;91:10-14. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.005.