Introduction: Dental fear and anxiety (DFA) are still prevalent in adults and should be considered a dental public health problem. Objective: To analyze the literature on dental fear and anxiety, focusing on the cause, diagnosis, treatment, and prevalence. Methodology: PubMed, SCOPUS and Google Scholar databases were reviewed to find recent articles published on the management on provisionalization of implants with the following keywords "anxiety", "odontophobia", "dental anxiety" and "dental fear". Results: Quantifying the factors that can trigger a DFA event, plus the added complexity in determining those that are affecting the patient during the appointment, knowing these factors will allow for better treatment. The visual perception of anxiety by the dentist has not been shown to be related to the true degree of anxiety reported by the patient, the use of a worldwide standardized scale is adequate in making real and not subjective decisions. Physiological tests are competent, although they will be more complex to perform. Preventive strategies during the dental consultation will help to mitigate or decrease the levels of DFA, starting with non-pharmacological actions such as aromatherapy, which shows favorable results. The prevalence of the population affected by DFA is high, at 15.3%, with young educated women comprising the highest percentage. Conclusion: By means of the world standardized scale it is possible to detect dental phobia and/or dental anxiety, the dentist should be trained for prevention, with non-pharmacological therapeutic options.

Introduction:The small access cavities could make it more difficult to visualize the pulp chamber as well as to locate, shape, clean and fill the canals. At the same time, increase the risk of iatrogenic complications. (Silva et al., 2020) Objective: To analyze the literature concerning the influence of minimally invasive endodontic access in pulp therapy, in relation to the degree of disinfection, degree of conformation, quality of obturation and resistance to the fracture. Methodology: By searching in electronic databases such as PubMed, using keywords: "minimally invasive endodontics", "degree of disinfection", "shaping", "obturation" and "resistance to fracture". Results: A true compromise of the degree of conformation of the canal is not demonstrated, although neither a benefit, when performing a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC). It is not possible to reach an adequate conclusion about the degree of disinfection in a CEC; priority should be given to a traditional endodontic cavity (TEC). Efficient canal obturation in CEC is limited to a single obturation technique, but if it is not intended to work under this protocol, the use of a TEC is suggested. No noticeable change in fracture strength is demonstrated in a CEC over a TEC. Conclusions: Success of endodontic treatment is represented by each of the stages that make up the procedure. CECs are an alteration to the traditional protocol and with it to the rest of the treatment stages.