Psychological Impact of COVID-19 in the Setting of Dentistry: A Review Article
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The worldwide pandemic has exposed healthcare professionals to a high risk of infection, exacerbating the situation of uncertainty caused by COVID-19. The objective of this review was to evaluate the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dental professionals and their patients. A literature review was conducted using Medline-Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, excluding systematic reviews, narratives, meta-analyses, case reports, book chapters, short communications, and congress papers. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the selected studies. The search retrieved 3879 articles, and 123 of these were selected for the review (7 longitudinal and 116 cross-sectional studies). Elevated anxiety levels were observed in dental professionals, especially in younger and female professionals. Except for orthodontic treatments, patients reported a high level of fear that reduced their demand for dentist treatment to emergency cases alone. The results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has had psychological and emotional consequences for dental professionals and their patients. Further research is necessary to evaluate the persistence of this problem over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".