Introduction: In pediatric dentistry, dental fear and anxiety are the main factors compromising treatment success, and overcoming this problem remains a significant challenge. Different kinds of dentist’s attire may evoke different reactions. The white coat phenomena can be a variable for its development. By understanding children’s perception and preferences about dentist’s attire, a suitable dress code could be adopted to establish good rapport with children.
Aim: To evaluate children’s perceptions and preferences toward dentist attire.
Materials and methods: A questionnaire designed with a series of photographs of male and female dentists in different attires was responded to by 150 children.
Results: Of the total children (n = 150), the most popular mode of attire was the traditional white coat attire 53% (n = 79) as seen in Graph 1. The least favored among the children was the professional attire (7%, n = 10). Overall, 14% (n = 21) of the total child participants preferred the child-friendly attire. No significant difference was found between boys and girls preferences over different forms of dentist attire (χ2 = 2.56, p = 0.39). About 49% male participants favored the male dentists and 64% female participants favored female dentists. No statistical significant association was noted among the children and the use of protective wear (χ2 = 0.98, p = 0.24), thus favoring it. Statistically, no significant difference was found between children’s reaction to white coat (χ2 = 0.56, p = 0.53), indicating a positive association between children’s reaction on exposure to white coat.
Conclusion: We found the white coat attire is most preferred by children and parents. Thereby, this rules out the stereotyped concept of “white coat fear”/“white coat syndrome” among children. However, child-friendly attires could be useful in anxious children for better practice management.
Keywords: Attire, Behavior, Factors.
How to cite this article: Santhosh Babu PT. Preferences of Dentists’ Attire among Children. Int J Prev Clin Dent Res 2016;3(4):258-260.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None