Association of stress, anxiety and depression with temporomandibular disorders in young adults – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The current systematic review aims to explore whether there is an association between temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and psychological factors such as stress, anxiety, and/or depression in young adults. Material and methods A systematic search was conducted on 14 March 2023 for publications from inception until February 2023, according to the PRISMA guidelines, using five major databases: the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. The PECO framework formulated the focused question “Is there an association between TMD and psychological factors (stress/depression/anxiety) among young adults?” The study was previously registered with trial no. CRD42023407502. Articles were selected according to the inclusion criteria. For each study, risk of bias was applied to assess the quality of the included article using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. The level of evidence was determined using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) scoring. Results Sixteen studies were included for final qualitative synthesis and the certainty of evidence assessment out of the 15 546 studies identified initially from different databases, with the total of 6362 participants. The included studies confirmed the association between different types of TMD and psychological factors in young adults. The risk of bias among the included studies was low, and the GRADE evidence reported was very low among included studies. Conclusions Within the scope of this systematic review, it could be concluded that there is an association between temporomandibular disorder and psychological factors. Painful TMD in young females was associated with anxiety and stress.
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 | 0.012 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".