Author’s name (year of publication) | Study design | Study location | Exposure (work stress) | Outcome | Number of participants | Mean age of the participants and proportion of women | Covariates | Main results |
Dental caries | ||||||||
Marcenes and Sheiham (1992)27 | Cross-sectional | Brazil | Karasek job strain model | DMFS index (number of decayed (D), missing (M), and filled (F) teeth surfaces per person) | 164 male paid workers aged from 35 to 44 years | Mean age=41.2 (SD=2.2) 0% | Marital quality, toothbrushing frequency, sugar consumption, age, years of residence, type of toothpaste, frequency of dental attendance and socioeconomic status | Work mental demand: coefficients=0.19 (95% CI=−0.91 to 1.29) Work control: coefficients=0.87 (95% CI=−0.18 to 1.91) Work variety: coefficients=−0.06 (95% CI=−1.57 to 1.45) from a linear regression analysis |
Periodontal status | ||||||||
Marcenes and Sheiham (1992)27 | Cross-sectional | Brazil | Karasek job strain model | The presence or absence of teeth either with gums bleeding on probing or with pockets was used. The indicator was labelled as ‘complete absence of teeth with gums bleeding on probing and with pockets’, and ‘presence of any tooth with gums bleeding on probing or pockets’ | 164 male paid workers aged from 35 to 44 years (16 workers were excluded from 164 participants due to missing values and edentulous) | Mean age=41.2 (SD=2.2) 0% | Marital quality, toothbrushing frequency, sugar consumption, age, years of residence, type of toothpaste, frequency of dental attendance and socioeconomic status | Work mental demand: OR=1.22 (95% CI=1.06 to 1.37) Work control: OR=0.97 (95% CI=0.88 to 1.07) Work variety: OR=0.99 (95% CI=0.85 to 1.16) from a logistic regression analysis |
Freeman and Goss (1993)23 | Unknown | Not reported | Occupational Stress Indicator | Mean increases in pocket depth | 10 women and 8 men from the head office of a large company | Mean age=39 55.6% | Unknown | Type A behaviour: coefficients=0.41 (p=0.003) Work environment (organisation/climate): coefficients=−0.34 (p=0.007) (statistical model was not reported) |
Linden et al (1996)28 | Unknown | UK | Occupational Stress Indicator assessed at the second examination | Changes in clinical attachment level after an interval of 5.5 (SD 0.6) years | 23 employed regular dental attendees aged between 20 and 50 years who had moderate or established periodontitis (13 men and 10 women) | Mean age=41.1 (SD=7.3) 43.5% | Age and social class of the household | Job satisfaction: coefficients=−0.014 (p <0.01) Type A: coefficients=0.026 (p<0.05) Locus of control: coefficients=−0.035 (p≥0.05) (statistical model was not reported) |
Genco et al (1999)29 | Cross-sectional | USA | Problems of Everyday Living Scale of Pearlin and Schooler | Severity of Attachment Loss Healthy (0–1 mm clinical attachment level), low (1.1–2.0 mm), moderate (2.1–3.0 mm), high (3.1–4.0 mm) and severe (4.1–8.0 mm) Severity of Alveolar Bone Loss Healthy (0.4–1.9 mm alveolar crestal height), low (2.0–2.9 mm), moderate (3.0–3.9 mm) and severe (≥4.0 mm) | 1426 inhabitants aged 25–74 years (741 women and 685 men) *working status was unknown | Mean age=48.9 (SD=13.9) 52.0% | Age, gender and levels of smoking | Job strain score among Attachment Loss categories (mean±SE) Healthy: 2.12±0.05 Low: 2.09±0.02 Moderate: 2.16±0.02 High: 2.09±0.05 Severe: 2.22±0.05 (non-significant) from analysis of covariance Job strain score among Alveolar Bone Loss categories (mean±SE) Healthy: 2.12±0.02 Low: 2.10±0.03 Moderate: 2.09±0.04 Severe: 2.19±0.04 (non-significant) from analysis of covariance |
Akhter et al (2005)30 | Cross-sectional | Japan | Life Events Scale (yes or no) | Those with mean clinical attachment loss <1.5 mm were assigned to a non-diseased group and those with mean clinical attachment loss ≥1.5 mm were assigned to a diseased group | 1089 employed and unemployed residents ranging in age from 18 to 96 years of a farming village in the northernmost island of Japan (531 men and 558 women) | Mean age=55.0 (SD=1.7) 51.2% | Age, gender, employment status, smoking behaviour, stress within 1 month, self-health-related stress, family health-related stress, frequency of dental attendance, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes mellitus | Job stress (reference: no): OR=1.71 (95% CI=1.10 to 2.67) from a logistic regression analysis |
Talib Bandar (2009)22 | Cross-sectional | Iraq | Life Events Scale (yes or no) | Gingival Index, probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing and clinical attachment level | 64 working dental patients of both genders with ages ranging from 23 to 65 years | Mean age and sex were not reported | None | The mean Gingival Index yes=1.851 and no=1.586 (p>0.05) Total mean percentage of sites with PPD ≥4 mm yes=6.277% and no=4.762% (p<0.05) Total mean bleeding on probing yes=41.534% and no=32.137% (p>0.05) The mean of the clinical attachment level yes=2.837 and no=2.275 (p>0.05) (all p values from t-test) |
Mahendra et al (2011)31 | Cross-sectional | India | An Occupational Stress Index of Srivastava, A K and Singh, A P | Control group (n=30): PPD ≤3 mm Test group 1 (n=40): at least four sites with PPD >4 mm and ≤6 mm Test group 2 (n=30): at least four sites with PPD >6 mm | 110 police personnel aged 35–48 years with moderate or established periodontitis | Mean age (SD); control group: 40.23 (3.46); test group 1: 40.42 (3.54); test group 2: 41.18 (3.78) Sex was not reported | None | Mean Occupational Stress Index Score (SD) Control: 79.53 (23.57) Test group 1: 133.68 (33.23) Test group 2: 158.13 (32.44) p<0.001 (p values from ANOVA with the Scheffe test) |
Ramji (2011)24 | Cross-sectional | India | Self-reported job stress (having or not) | Community Periodontal Index and Treatment Needs protocol (a tooth scored 3 or 4 indicating increased pocket depth of over 2 mm indicates presence of periodontitis) | 198 industrial labour full-time workers from a small-scale sector (SS) and 68 from a large-scale sector (LS) between the ages of 18 and 64 years | Age groups (SS (n=130), LS (n=68)) 15–19 years: 0%, 1% 20–29 years: 38%, 60% 30–44 years: 45%, 20% 45–64 years: 17%, 19% Sex was not reported | None | Having self-reported job stress: OR=7.5 (95% CI=3.7 to 15.02) from a logistic regression analysis |
Islam et al (2019)32 | Cross-sectional | Japan | Brief Job Stress Questionnaire developed by referring the demand–control– support model in Japan (low stress, high stress-high coping, and high stress-low coping) *coping was assessed using a questionnaire developed by a Japanese company | No inflammation of the gingiva or redness and/or swelling of the interdental papilla without gingival recession was classified as non-periodontitis, and any redness and/or swelling in the gingiva with gingival recession and/or tooth mobility was classified as periodontitis, based on visual inspection by dentists | 738 workers of a Japanese crane manufacturing company (92 were women) | Mean age=40.7 (SD=10.5) 12.5% | Age, gender, daily flossing, regular dental check-up, body mass index, sleeping duration, current smoker, daily alcohol drinking, monthly overtime work and worker type | High stress-high coping: OR=0.30 (95% CI=0.14 to 0.66) High stress-low coping: OR=2.79 (95% CI=1.05 to 7.43) (reference: low stress) from a logistic regression analysis |
Tooth loss | ||||||||
Hayashi et al (2001)33 | Cross-sectional | Japan | Karasek job strain model (high job demand and low control and other categories) | Tooth loss via oral examination (≥4 teeth lost and ≤3 teeth lost) | 252 male workers employed at a manufacturing company aged 20–59 years | Mean age=38.7 (SD=11.0) 0% | Age, type A behaviour, alexythymia, depression, job satisfaction and life satisfaction | High job demand and low control (reference: other categories): OR=1.2 (95% CI=0.40 to 3.42) from a logistic regression analysis |
Sato et al (2020)34 | Cross-sectional | Japan | Effort–reward imbalance model (having or not) | Self-reported tooth loss Having tooth loss or not (=no experience of tooth loss) | 1195 employees aged 25–50 years old who work 20 hours per week or more (women=569) | Median age=37 (1st and 3rd quartiles=31 and 43) 48% | Age, sex, marital status, annual household income, years of education, employment status, occupation, working hours per week, job position, company size, body mass index and smoking status | High effort–reward imbalance ratio: prevalence ratio=1.20 (95% CI=1.01 to 1.42) from Poisson regression models with a robust error variance |
ANOVA, analysis of variance.