|
| Authors | Indication | Study design | Subjects (number and age) | Treatment | Principal endpoints | Adverse effects | Outcome |
|
| Lehrner et al., 2000. | Anxiety in patients waiting for dental treatment. | Randomized controlled study | Total number of 72 patients;
age range: 22 - 57 years.
Mean age Odor group: males 38.2 ± 9.6 years (age range 30-69 years);
females 32.5 ± 9.7 years (age range: 21-50 years).
Mean age No-odor group: males 31.4 ± 4.2 years (age range: 24-30years);
females 34.6 ± 9.7 years (age range: 22-57 years) | Participants were divided into two groups:
odor group: 18 men and 17 women.
control group: 14 men, 23 women
Ambient odor of orange was diffused in the waiting room through an electrical dispenser in the odor group whereas in the control group no odor was released in the air.
Every morning and every noon approximately 0.25 ml, corresponding to five drops, of essential oil was applied to the diffuser. | To assess cognitive function, the Wortschatz test (WST) was used.
Postprocedural pain index was measured by visual analogue scale (VAS). State of anxiety was evaluated with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) state.
For assessment of current mood, alertness, and calmness, the
Mehrdimensionale Befindlichkeitsfragebogen (MDBF) was used.
Mood, alertness,
and calmness was evaluated with the five-point Likert scales. | Not reported. | Relaxant effect of ambient orange odor exposure.
Women exposed to
orange odor had a lower level of state anxiety, a more
positive mood, and a higher level of calmness. |
|
| Jaafarzadeh et al., 2017 | Child anxiety during dental treatment. | Randomized, controlled, blinded, crossover, clinical trial. | 30 children (10 boys, 20 girls).
Age range: 6-9 years.
Mean age: 7.66 ± 0.84 years
First group mean age: 7.80 ± 0.86 years (treated).
Second group mean age: 7.53 ± 0.83 years (control).
| Patients were randomly assigned into two groups according to crossover design.
First group: 15 children (9 girls and 6 boys); mean age 7.80 ± 0.86 years, treated in the absence of orange aroma in the first session (control) and under orange aroma in the second one (intervention).
Second group: 11 girls and 4 boys; mean age 7.53 ± 0.83 years, treated under orange aroma in the first encounter (intervention) and without odor in the second one (control).
2 ml of orange essence was placed in a dispenser activated for 2 min every 10 min. | Anxiety of children was assessed with salivary cortisol level and pulse rate before and on completion of each of two dental treatment appointments. | Not reported | Statistically significant reduction of salivary cortisol level and pulse rate in aromatherapy group compared to control group. |
|
| Costa Goes et al., 2012. | Healthy volunteers submitted to an anxiogenic situation. | Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical
trial. | 40 males healthy graduate student volunteers.
Age range: 18-30 years.
| The video-monitored Stroop Color-Word Test was used to elicit anxiety
in subjects participating in the study immediately after treatment.
Participants were divided into five groups treated as follows:
Test aroma. The test aroma consisted of essential oil of C. sinensis 2.5, 5, or 10 drops (SO2.5, SO5, SO10);
control aroma: tea tree essential oil 2.5 drops;
nonaromatic control: The nonaromatic control was distilled water, 2.5 drops (H2O). | Psychologic parameters: STAI, Visual Analogue Mood Scale.
Physiologic parameters (heart rate and gastrocnemius electromyogram). Psychologic and physiologic parameters were evaluated before the inhalation
period and before, during, and after the SCWT. | Not reported | Individuals exposed to the test aroma (2.5 and 10 drops) presented a lack of significant alterations (p> 0.05) in state-anxiety, subjective tension and tranquillity levels throughout the
anxiogenic situation, revealing a dose-dependent anxiolytic activity of sweet orange essential oil. |
|
