Intravenous cannulation is an invasive procedure that causes stress, anxiety, and pain for many patients. A recent animal study found that exposure to green light induced antinociceptive and anxiolytic effects. This study examined whether green color exposure reduced stress, anxiety, and pain during peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIC) for sedation in dental patients. In this controlled clinical trial, 24 patients (mean age 40.9 years) were randomized to wear clear glasses or green-colored glasses for 15 min before PIC on two separate days in a cross-over manner. The primary outcome measures were salivary alpha-amylase (sAA) activity and stress-related hemodynamic changes, and the secondary outcome measures were the visual analog scale anxiety (VAS-A) and pain (VAS-P) scores during PIC. The sAA level in the clear group significantly increased during PIC compared with baseline, but did not increase in the green group. Median VAS-P scores during PIC were lower in the green group than in the clear group (VAS-P, 17.0 vs. 50.0). Green color exposure with glasses significantly reduced stress and pain during PIC without any adverse effects. This simple, safe, and effective method may be useful during painful medical procedures.

Background: Dental phobia significantly impairs treatment adherence and oral health–related quality of life. While intravenous sedation (IVS) is commonly used to manage anxiety, interest in non-pharmacological alternatives is increasing. Visual color stimuli are known to affect emotional processing and autonomic nervous system activity. This study investigated whether brief exposure to colored goggles (translucent, green, blue, red) influenced physiological and psychological stress markers in patients with dental phobia undergoing IVS. Methods: Twenty patients with dental phobia (CMDAS ≥ 20) participated in a within-subject repeated measures design, experiencing all four color conditions in randomized order via Latin square. Salivary alpha-amylase (sAA), heart rate (HR), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain and satisfaction were measured at four time points. The Friedman test, followed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction, was used to compare conditions. Results: Prior to peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIC), green goggle exposure significantly reduced median sAA levels compared to the translucent control (p = 0.009). HR was lower in the green and blue conditions than in the red, although not significantly. VAS pain scores were significantly reduced under green and blue conditions; satisfaction scores remained uniformly high across all conditions. Red did not worsen stress responses compared to the control and may promote increased engagement. Conclusions: Cool color stimuli—particularly green and blue—may attenuate acute stress responses in patients with dental phobia prior to PIC. Incorporating such visual cues into preoperative environments may serve as a simple, non-invasive adjunct to managing dental anxiety.

Background: Patients with dental phobia frequently require intravenous sedation (IVS) to undergo dental treatment; however, some can gradually discontinue IVS through repeated clinical experiences. The physiological and psychological factors influencing successful IVS withdrawal remain unclear. This study aimed to compare physiological (sAA, HR) and subjective (VAS) measures between patients who discontinued IVS and those who remained dependent on IVS. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 51 patients with dental phobia treated under IVS. Participants were classified into a Non-Sedation Group (NSG; n = 25) and a Sedation-Dependent Group (SDG; n = 26) based on their ability to discontinue IVS during the course of treatment. Salivary alpha-amylase (sAA), heart rate (HR), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for fear, tension, and anxiety were assessed at predefined time points from the waiting room to venous cannulation. Treatment satisfaction and expectations for future treatment were also evaluated. Results: sAA activity was significantly higher in the SDG than in the NSG at T0 and T1 (p < 0.05), indicating higher levels of selected physiological measures during anticipatory phases; however, the difference at T2 was not significant. HR differed significantly only in the waiting room, whereas no between-group differences were observed in self-reported VAS scores for fear, tension, or anxiety at any time point, indicating a dissociation between physiological and subjective stress measures. Treatment satisfaction and expectations for future treatment were significantly higher in the SDG. Conclusions: Patients who remained dependent on IVS showed higher levels in selected physiological measures at the group level during anticipatory stages, whereas no corresponding differences were observed in self-reported subjective measures. These findings are exploratory and descriptive in nature and do not imply predictive or causal relationships.

Background/Objectives: Dental fear and anxiety can arise from dental procedures, sensory stimuli, environmental factors, and interpersonal factors. This study investigated dental treatment-related fear and differences between professionals’ estimates for patients in general and patients’ self-reports. Methods: This single-center, cross-sectional study included 219 participants: 53 dentists, 65 dental hygienists, and 101 patients. Fear intensity was assessed using a 0–100 visual analog scale. Dental professionals estimated fear in patients in general, whereas patients rated their own fear; assessments were unpaired. Ratings for 13 dental procedures were compared across the three groups. Fear ratings for six dental-related factors were also compared within patients. Results: Before Holm adjustment, 6 of the 13 procedures showed significant between-group differences; 3 remained significant after adjustment: injection in the hand, intraoral injection, and scaling. The largest effect size was observed for injection in the hand, with median fear scores of 69, 74, and 21 for dentists, dental hygienists, and patients, respectively (p < 0.001, ε² = 0.254). Within patient ratings, fear ratings differed significantly across the six factors (p < 0.001, Kendall’s W = 0.25). Fear ratings for dental treatment and dental sounds were higher than those for the dentist, dental odors, the dental clinic, and sitting in the dental chair, with no significant difference between treatment and sounds. Conclusions: Group-level differences between professionals’ estimates and patients’ self-reports were procedure-specific and cannot establish individual-level estimation accuracy. Direct assessment of patients’ fear of specific procedures and sensory stimuli may improve understanding of dental treatment-related fear.