4.6 Article

Gender Difference in Associations between Chronic Temporomandibular Disorders and General Quality of Life in Koreans: A Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145002

关键词

-

资金

  1. Jaseng Medical Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Chronic temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is known to have strong correlations with psychological factors and to display gender disparity. However, while chronic TMD is known to affect quality of life, large-scale studies investigating the influence on quality of life by gender are scarce. Methods This cross-sectional study assessed the data of 17,198 participants aged >= 19 years who completed chronic TMD and EuroQol-5 Dimension sections in the 4th Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2007-2009). We adjusted for covariates (health behavior, sociodemographic factors) in regression analysis for complex sampling design to calculate regression coefficients and 95% CIs for gender difference in the association between chronic TMD and quality of life. We also evaluated which covariates of somatic health, mental health, health behavior, and sociodemographic factors weakened the relationship between TMD and EQ-5D. Results Prevalence of chronic TMD was 1.6% (men 1.3%, women 1.8%), and chronic TMD persisted to negatively impact quality of life even after adjusting for confounding variables. Low sociodemographic factors and health behavior had a negative effect on quality of life. Somatic health and mental health were most affected by chronic TMD. As for quality of life, women were affected to a greater extent than men by TMD. Women were more affected by osteoarthritis and general mental health (stress, depressive symptoms, and thoughts of suicide), and men by employment. Conclusions These results imply that chronic diseases and psychological factors are important in chronic TMD, and that there may be physiological and pathological gender differences in TMD.

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

4.6
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