Page 33 - SPEMD_62-3

rev port estomatol med dent cir maxilofac . 2021;62(3):157-162 159

ried out in the municipality of Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil. Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS software, version
This municipality has a Human Development Index (HDI) of 22.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive
0.72, a Gini coefficient of 0.58, and about 407,500 inhabitants. 16 statistical analysis corresponded to calculating absolute and
The present study’s sample was selected from a previous relative frequencies for categorical variables and measuring
17
study that had a probabilistic sample of 466 schoolchildren, central tendency and variability for quantitative variables. The
regularly enrolled in elementary schools in the municipality, Kolmogorov -Smirnov test was used to verify the normality of
who had all first permanent molars fully erupted in the oral quantitative variables. As data distribution was non-
cavity and had no mental retardation, developmental disorders, -parametric, the Mann -Whitney and Kruskal -Wallis U tests
neuropsychiatric disorders, and no fixed orthodontic appliance. were adopted. The significance level adopted was 5%.
Our sample was comprised of 185 children aged 8 -10 years of This study was approved by the local Human Research Ethics
both sexes, who had a minimum score of 32 on the Children’s Committee, under number 3.155.847. Informed consent was ob-
Fear Survey Schedule -Dental Subscale questionnaire (CFSS -DS). tained from all guardians and individuals included in the study.
Data were collected between March and May 2019 in a
school environment. First, the research was presented to the
children, who received informed consent forms to hand over Results
to their parents or guardians. On the second visit, with the
parents’ authorization, children were transferred to a reserved The sample’s mean age was 8.95 ± 0.8 years. Most participants
room to understand the research and assent. Finally, the CFSS- were female (59.5%) aged 9 years (37.3%), followed by
-DS questionnaire was applied in the presence of three re- 8 -year -olds (34.1%) and 10 -year -olds (28.6%).
searchers to guide the self -completion by the schoolchildren. The average total CFSS -DS score was 40.44 ± 6.81, with a me-
Children had the opportunity to ask questions about the ques- dian of 40.00, IIQ 35–45, a minimum score of 32, and a maxi-
25 -75
tionnaire and, when necessary, obtain support by reading the mum score of 75. According to the CFSS -DS, most children had
questions. Researchers did not influence the children’s re- high dental fear (53.5%), and 46.5% had moderate dental fear.
sponses to the questions. The CFSS -DS questionnaire was val- Table 1 shows the distribution, medians, and interquartile range
18
idated for Brazil, consisting of 15 items related to various of responses to the CFSS -DS items by children with high dental
aspects of dental care. Children with a score equal to or great- fear levels. The following CFSS -DS items obtained the highest
19
er than 32 were classified as having dental fear. As for sever- median values: “Injections,” “Having a stranger touch you,” “The
ity, scores between ≥32 and ≤38 were classified as moderate dentist drilling,” “Having somebody put instruments in your
dental fear, while scores >38 were classified as high fear. 18 mouth,” “Choking,” and “Having to go to the hospital” (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution, medians, and interquartile range of responses to the CFSS ‑DS items by children with moderate
and high dental fear levels.
TOTAL
Items Not afraid at all A little afraid Fairly afraid Pretty much afraid Very afraid Md
n % n % n % n % n % (IQR 25 ‑75 )
Item 1 48 25.9 65 35.1 35 18.9 8 4.3 29 15.7 2.00 (1–3)
Item 2 59 31.9 47 25.4 32 17.3 22 11.9 25 13.5 2.00 (1–4)
Item 3 33 17.8 18 9.7 26 14.1 25 13.5 83 44.9 4.00 (2–5)
Item 4 90 48.6 36 19.5 32 17.3 11 5.9 16 8.6 2.00 (1–3)
Item 5 129 69.7 22 11.9 15 8.1 6 3.2 13 7.0 1.00 (1–2)
Item 6 36 19.5 33 17.8 23 12.4 20 10.8 73 39.5 4.00 (2–5)
Item 7 69 37.3 35 18.9 33 17.8 11 5.9 37 20.0 2.00 (1–4)
Item 8 50 27.0 27 14.6 23 12.4 24 13.0 61 33.0 3.00 (1–5)
Item 9 64 34.6 36 19.5 20 10.8 18 9.7 47 25.4 2.00 (1–5)
Item 10 60 32.4 35 18.9 27 14.6 18 9.7 45 24.3 2.00 (1–4)
Item 11 40 21.6 44 23.8 28 15.1 23 12.4 50 27.0 3.00 (2–5)
Item 12 13 7.0 17 9.2 22 11.9 28 15.1 105 56.8 5.00 (3–5)
Item 13 60 32.4 26 14.1 22 11.9 21 11.4 56 30.3 3.00 (1–5)
Item 14 107 57.8 28 15.1 20 10.8 8 4.3 22 11.9 1.00 (1–3)
Item 15 117 63.2 30 16.2 18 9.7 1 0.5 19 10.3 1.00 (1–2)
Md – Median; IQR – Interquartile Range.
Item 1 – “Dentists”; Item 2 – “Doctors”; Item 3 – “Injections”; Item 4 – “Having someone examine your mouth”; Item 5 – “Having to open your
mouth”; Item 6 – “Having a stranger touch you”; Item 7 – “Having somebody look at you”; Item 8 – “The dentist drilling”; Item 9 – “The sight of the
dentist drilling”; Item 10 – “The noise of the dentist drilling”; Item 11 – “Having somebody put instruments in your mouth”; Item 12 – “Choking”;
Item 13 – “Having to go to the hospital”; Item 14 – “People in White uniforms”; Item 15 – “Having the nurse clean your teeth”.