3. Comparison 1: audiovisual distraction (music versus audiovisual glasses versus control; audiovisual glasses versus control).

Study	Outcome	Intervention (t2): audiovisual distraction	Control	Results
Nuvvula 2015	Anxiety: MCDAS(f)	Before LA: 22.20 (4.00 SD; 95% CI 20.70 to 23.70)	Before LA: 20.60 (2.40 SD; 95% CI 19.70 to 21.50)	t1 (before versus after LA): P = 0.001 t2 (before versus after LA): P = 0.001 Control (before versus after LA): P = 0.83 Intergroup comparison (P value): t1 versus control (before LA) = 0.70, (after LA) = 0.001; t2 versus control (before LA) = 0.14, (after LA) = 0.001; t1 versus t2 (before LA) = 1.00, (after LA) = 0.001
		After LA: 8.30 (2.50 SD; 95% CI 7.30 to 9.20)	After LA: 20.90 (7.20 SD; 95% CI 18.20 to 23.50)
	Pulse rates	Before treatment: 104.60 (2.90 SD; 95% CI 103.50 to 105.60)	Before treatment: 95.40 (5.60 SD; 95% CI 93.30 to 97.50)	P value before treatment versus during LA: t1; t2 and control = 0.001 Intergroup comparison (P value): t1 versus control (before treatment) = 0.01, (during LA) = 0.001; t2 versus control (before treatment) = 0.01, (during LA) = 0.001; t1 versus t2 (before treatment and during LA) = 0.001
		During LA: 109.40  (5.00 SD; 95% CI 107.50 to 111.20)	During LA: 119.00 (13.10 SD; 95% CI 114.10 to 123.90)
	Behaviour: Frankl scale	Before versus during LA (P value): t1 = 0.002; t2 = 0.001; control = 0.01 Intergroup comparison (P value): t1 versus control (before treatment) = 0.42, (after treatment) = 0.02; t2 versus control (before treatment) = 0.01, (after treatment) < 0.001; t1 versus t2 (before treatment) = 0.07, (after treatment) = 0.01
	Behaviour: Houpt scale	Intergroup comparison during LA (P value): t1 versus control = 0.31; t2 versus control = 0.003; t1 versus t2 = 0.009
Study	Outcome	Treatment with audiovisual distraction (group 1)	Control (group 2)	Results
Al‐Khotani 2016	Anxiety: FIS	Authors stated "there were no significant differences in mean (SD) FIS scores between the AV‐group; 1.93 (1.15) and CTR‐group (1.68 ± 0.86) (P  = 0.570)." Mean values for the whole procedure given (including restorative treatment). However, no individual values for LA given other than a graph. For this reason it was not possible to include this outcome. Email sent to study author requesting separate values rather than whole treatment means
	Anxiety: modified Venham's clinical ratings of anxiety and co‐operative behaviour scale (MVARS)	The authors stated "When the co‐operative behaviour was analyzed (MVARS), there was a significant difference between groups with lower mean (SD) MVARS scores in the AV‐group (0.14 ± 0.36) compared to the CTR‐group (0.75 ± 0.52) (P = 0.03)." Mean values for the whole procedure given (including restorative treatment). However, no individual values for LA given other than a graph. For this reason it was not possible to include this outcome. Email sent to study author requesting separate values rather than whole treatment means
	Pulse rate	Before LA: mean: 95.90 (SD = 10.30) After LA: mean: 98.60 (SD = 12.20)	Before LA: mean: 94.30 (SD =14.40) After LA: mean: 99.40 (SD = 14.50)	Significant increase of pulse rate during LA in the control group (group 2) P = 0.04. Increase not significant in the study group (group 1) P = 0.27
	Blood pressure	Before LA: systolic blood pressure 111.70 (SD = 10.70) diastolic blood pressure 65.20 (SD = 7.50) After LA: systolic blood pressure 115 (SD = 6.30) diastolic blood pressure 66.80 (SD = 6.30)	Before LA: systolic blood pressure 112 (SD = 10) diastolic blood pressure 67.80 (SD = 9) After LA: systolic blood pressure 110.90 (SD = 9.60) diastolic blood pressure 64.50 (SD = 5.80)	There is actually a decrease in systolic blood pressure in the control group but the study authors say: "Although s‐BP seemed to be higher during injections with local anaesthesia in both groups" No comparative statistics for before and after LA only
Study	Outcome	Intervention: audiovisual distraction (tablet) (group 2)	Control (group 3)	Results
Al‐Halabi 2018	Behavioural assessment: the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale	The authors provided data as comparison between groups with no individual data that could be used for any further analysis. The authors stated that no significant difference was noticed between 3 groups (P = 0.454). We have attempted to contact the main study author but no clarification was received
	Pain assessment: the Wong‐Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale	The authors stated that no significant difference was noticed between 3 groups in pain assessment (P = 0.536)
	Pulse rate: from when the patients seated to immediately after inferior alveolar nerve block	The authors stated that "Then one‐way Anova statistical test was done, significant difference was noticed between 3 groups in the heart pulse rate scale (P = 0.0430)." No other information was provided

CI = confidence interval; FIS = Facial Image Scale; LA = local anaesthetic; MCDAS(f) = Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale: faces; n = number; SD = standard deviation; t1 = treatment 1; t2 = treatment 2.