4.5 Article

Salivary Stress Markers, Stress, and Periodontitis: A Pilot Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 82, 期 2, 页码 287-292

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100319

关键词

Depression; periodontitis; saliva; stress, physiological

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Some cross-sectional and longitudinal studies attempted to link periodontitis with stress. To our knowledge, only one small study was published on the mechanism by which stress may influence periodontal diseases, suggesting behavioral and physiologic mechanisms and investigating the role of inflammation as a potential mediator. The present study is planned to explore the associations among periodontal disease, psychologic factors, and salivary markers of stress, psychoneuroimmunologic variables, and health behaviors. Methods: One hundred periodontitis patients were selected, and participants provided information on general health, chronic stress, and demographics. Stress markers (choromogranin A, cortisol, alpha-amylase, and beta-endorphin) were measured from saliva. A dentist assessed the presence of dental plaque on lingual and buccal surfaces, the gingival index, and the number of remaining teeth with periodontal disease. Results: Stress and salivary stress markers were significantly correlated with clinical parameters of periodontal disease (ranging from 0.19 to 0.59; P < 0.001). Neglecting to brush teeth during stress was associated with missing teeth. After adjusting for stress variables, salivary cortisol and beta-endorphin were significantly associated with tooth loss and periodontal clinical parameters (P<0.001; R-2 = 0.59). Conclusions: This study suggests that stress might be associated with periodontal disease through physiologic and behavioral mechanisms. In making diagnoses of psychiatric patients, the association between salivary stress markers and periodontal disease needs to be included. Further exploration of relationships between periodontitis and stress is warranted. J Periodontol 2011;82:287-292.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据