Assessment of Salivary Cortisol Concentrations as a Level of Stress Indicator among Individuals Undergoing Dental Extraction Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anxious patients tend to exaggerate the aversive events before the actual dental therapy. The anxiety and fear are the major factors that regulate cortisol levels. Aim: Our study aims to estimate the salivary cortisol among patients subjected to dental extraction and correlate any existence between pre- and post-extraction cortisol levels and vital parameters compared to the control group. Methodology: The study sample included sixty individuals, thirty patients indicated for a dental extraction, and thirty healthy patients between the ages of 18 and 60 years. We collected saliva samples from the control group and pre- and post-extraction samples from the study group participants and vital parameters. We used quantitative ELISA Kit, Diagnostics Biochem Canada Inc. (DBC), to estimate the salivary cortisol level. We evaluated the values using the Chi-square test, Pearson correlation test, and paired t -test using the JMP 15; JMP Pro, Version 15 (SAS) Microsoft ® Windows ® for × 64. Results: The mean value of cortisol concentration of saliva was significantly greater in the preextraction group (6.13 ± 0.53 μg/dl) than after extraction group (3.17 ± 0.14 μg/dl) ( P < 0.001). There were no significant associations between hemodynamic parameters and salivary cortisol concentration except for the postextraction systolic blood pressure (BP). A comparison of hemodynamic parameters between the study and control group revealed substantial differences in systolic BP. Conclusion: The patient's anticipation and anxiety toward dental therapy elevate the cortisol level. Dental surgeons should treat the patients more conveniently and effectively without any strains and provide a comfortable atmosphere to avoid stress-related consequences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".