## 3 Results  
A high percentage (28.7%) of the sample was above the MDAS threshold (\(\geq\)19), the cut-off to detect the presence of high dental anxiety. A logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effects of age and gender on the likelihood that participants would have high dental anxiety. Only genderproved to be significant, with women being 3.62 times more likely to exhibit high dental anxiety than men (B = 1.3, SE = 0.3, AOR = 3.6, 95% CI = 1.9 to 6.6, \(p<0.001\)). No participants declared having experienced sexual assault (item LOE-DEQ 22). For the lack of variability, the item was removed from the model. The original 4-factor model proposed by [PERSON] et al. [8] fitted the data obtained from the Italian sample, confirming our first hypothesis. Specifically, the following indices were found: \(\chi 2/\mathrm{df}=1.41\); CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.04 (CI = 0.03 to 0.05); SRMR = 0.001; TLI = 0.94. The internal consistency reliability assessed through the Cronbach's alpha, except for the GTE subscale (\(\alpha=0.49\)), was adequate, ranging from 0.66 to 0.75. The full model statistics (i.e., factor loadings, standardized factor loadings, [PERSON]'s alphas, means, and standard deviations) are reported in Table 2.  
Correlational analyses for hypotheses 2 and 3 are reported in Table 3. Regarding the criterion validity of the LOE-DEQ, the subscales DBPE and DDP, as well as the total score, correlated positively with dental anxiety, indicating that higher rates of distressing dental events were associated with higher levels of dental anxiety. On the contrary, neither the ODDE nor GTE subscales correlated with dental anxiety. Thus, the criterion validity was partially confirmed. The effect sizes ranged from 0.18 to 0.26. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Scale** & **Alpha** & **Range** & **Total Score: M (SD)** \\ \hline LOE-DEQ-DBPE & 0.75 & 0–8 & 1.19 (1.70) \\ \hline Item & & Factor Loading (SE) & Std. Loading \\ LOE-DEQ 1 & & 1.00 & 0.65 \\ LOE-DEQ 2 & & 1.18 (0.17) & 0.76 \\ LOE-DEQ 3 & & 0.95 (0.17) & 0.63 \\ LOE-DEQ 4 & & 1.04 (0.17) & 0.67 \\ LOE-DEQ 5 & & 0.85 (0.15) & 0.57 \\ LOE-DEQ 6 & & 1.36 (0.19) & 0.88 \\ LOE-DEQ 7 & & 1.34 (0.18) & 0.86 \\ LOE-DEQ 8 & & 0.90 (0.18) & 0.57 \\ \hline LOE-DEQ–DDP & 0.66 & 0–5 & 0.67 (1.10) \\ \hline Item & & Factor Loading (SE) & Std. Loading \\ LOE-DEQ 9 & & 1.00 & 0.75 \\ LOE-DEQ 10 & & 0.87 (0.14) & 0.67 \\ LOE-DEQ 11 & & 1.16 (0.14) & 0.87 \\ LOE-DEQ 12 & & 1.00 (0.15) & 0.76 \\ LOE-DEQ 13 & & 0.94 (0.14) & 0.70 \\ \hline LOE-DEQ–ODDE & 0.66 & 0–3 & 0.49 (75) \\ \hline Item & & Factor Loading (SE) & Std. Loading \\ LOE-DEQ 14 & & 1.00 & 0.81 \\ LOE-DEQ 15 & & 0.75 (0.18) & 0.58 \\ LOE-DEQ 16 & & 0.68 (0.19) & 0.56 \\ \hline LOE-DEQ–GTE & 0.49 & 0–7 & 0.85 (1.10) \\ \hline Item & & Factor Loading (SE) & Std. Loading \\ LOE-DEQ 17 & & 1.00 & 0.56 \\ LOE-DEQ 18 & & 0.69 (0.24) & 0.38 \\ LOE-DEQ 19 & & 1.23 (0.35) & 0.67 \\ LOE-DEQ 20 & & 1.38 (0.43) & 0.76 \\ LOE-DEQ 21 & & 1.22 (0.39) & 0.67 \\ LOE-DEQ 22 & & / & / \\ LOE-DEQ 23 & & 1.82 (0.56) & 1.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: LOE-DEQ–DBPE = Dentists’ behaviour and patients’ emotions; LOE-DEQ–DDP = Distressing dental procedures; LOE-DEQ–ODDE = Other distressing dental events; LOE-DEQ–GTE = General traumatic events; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; SE = Standard Error; Std. Loading = Standardized factor loading.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Confirmatory factor analysis of Level of Exposure-Dental Experiences Questionnaire. Regarding the convergent validity of the LOE-DEQ, the subscales DBPE, DDP, and ODDE, as well as the total score, correlated positively with each of the DBS-R subscales, indicating that higher rates of distressing dental events were associated with more negative beliefs about the dentist and the dental treatment. On the contrary, among the DBS-R subscales, GTE correlated positively only with Professionalism. Thus, also the convergent validity was partially confirmed. The effect sizes ranged from 0.14 to 0.42.