Investigating the association between stress, saliva and dental caries: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This scoping review addressed the question 'what do we know about stress-related changes in saliva and dental caries in general population?' METHODS: The review was conducted using electronic searches via Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and WoS. All published human studies with both observational and experimental designs were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed eligible articles and extracted the data. The studies' quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. RESULTS: Our search identified 232 reports, of which six were included in this review. All six studies were conducted in children and used salivary cortisol as stress marker. The studies varied by design, types of stressors, children's caries experience, methods of saliva collection. Four studies reported a positive association between saliva cortisol levels and caries (p < 0.05) while the other two reported no association (p > 0.05). The quality of the included studies was weak to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: There is lack of evidence about an association between stress-related changes in saliva and caries. Well-designed longitudinal studies with rigorous measurement technics for stress, saliva and dental caries are necessary. This will help to generate new insights into the multifactorial etiology of caries and provide evidence for a rational method for its control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".