4.1 Article

Reported bruxism and restless legs syndrome in media personnel with or without irregular shift work

期刊

ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 63, 期 2, 页码 94-98

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016350510019757

关键词

dissatisfaction; non-patient; shift work; sleep problem; tooth-grinding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A standardized questionnaire was mailed to all employees of the Finnish Broadcasting Company with irregular shift work (n = 750) and to an equal number of randomly selected controls in the same company with regular 8-h daytime work. The questionnaire covered demographic items, employment details, general health experience, physical status, psychosocial status, stress, work satisfaction and performance, tobacco use, bruxism, and restless legs symptoms (RLS). The aim was to investigate among a multiprofessional media personnel the associations between reported bruxism and RLS, while simultaneously controlling the effects of gender, age, tobacco use, shift work, and dissatisfaction with current workshift schedule. The overall response rate was 58.3% (53.7% men). The response rate in the irregular shift work group was 82.3% (56.6% men) and in the regular daytime work group 34.3% (46.7% men). In the bivariate analyses, RLS was more prevalent in workers at either end of the studied age range (p < 0.05). Self-reported frequent bruxism was significantly associated with younger age (p < 0.05). Females reported RLS (11.4%) slightly more often than males (7.7%) (NS). In logistic regression, frequent bruxism (p < 0.05) and older age (p < 0.05) were significantly positively associated with RLS. Dissatisfaction with one's current workshift schedule (p < 0.05) and RLS (p < 0.05) were significantly positively associated with frequent bruxism, while age (p < 0.05) was significantly negatively associated. In conclusion, perceived bruxism may be a sign of a stressful situation or dissatisfaction, while RLS as a more stable trait may in itself negatively affect sleep quality and further enhance the problem.

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

4.1
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