Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Oct 10;19(10):e0311645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311645

Comparison of perceived stress and oral health status using perceived stress scale and DMFT index between healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive, and known hypertensive dental patients

Saira Atif 1,2,*, Uffaq Syed 1,2, Musarat Rafiq 1,2, Ateeb Fatima 1,2, Sadia Rana 3, Madiha Tariq 1,2
Editor: Hadi Ghasemi4
PMCID: PMC11469613  PMID: 39388400

Abstract

Subtle and asymptomatic nature of high blood pressure results in increase in mortality and morbidity. Dentists may play a vital role in identifying patients with suspected hypertension who are not yet diagnosed to refer them timely to physicians for diagnosis and management of the condition. The aim of this study was to compare the oral health status using decayed, missing, filled teeth (DMFT) index and perceived stress score using perceived stress scale (PSS-10) between systemically healthy dental patients, and patients with undiagnosed and known hypertension attending dental out-patient department of Combined Military Hospital (CMH) Lahore Medical College & Institute of Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan. It is a cross-sectional descriptive study in which 108 patients participated selected through purposive sampling method, 36 in each group. According to Kruskal Wallis H test, there were significant associations seen among the three groups with age (p < 0.001), DMFT (p < 0.001), and PSS-10 scores (p = 0.003). According to Spearman’s matrix correlations, moderate positive correlations were observed between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and DMFT (r = 0.46, p < 0.001), and MAP and age (r = 0.38, p = 0.001), DMFT and PSS-10 (r = 0.47, p < 0.001), and DMFT and age (r = 0.33, p = 0.004) in healthy and patients with undiagnosed hypertension. It may be concluded that patients with raised blood pressure have higher perceived stress and deteriorated oral health.

Introduction

Hypertension is a global health concern [1]. High blood pressure is one of the major challenges that Pakistan healthcare system is facing [2, 3]. Globally, it has been reported that 41% of women and 51% of men with hypertension were not previously diagnosed with the condition [1]. Early detection of high blood pressure can help reduce cardiovascular complications [4]. Most of the people are unaware of hypertension because of absence of any warning signs or symptoms [5].

Blood pressure is now considered a vital sign which is measured in all standard healthcare settings. However, in a developing country like Pakistan, regular healthcare visits for screening or check-ups are rare, and people visit such facilities only in case of a health problem [6]. Dentists are integral part of oral healthcare system and their role is not only performing quality dental care, but also of screening and referring patients for any suspected systemic disease such as oral cancers, diabetes, and hypertension which could lead to morbidity or mortality if left untreated. During dental visits, only 13.3% of dentists in Saudia Arabia measured blood pressure of all patients before treatment [7]. Studies have reported that dentists play an important role in referring patients with suspected hypertension to primary health care facility, out of which a considerable number are subsequently diagnosed with hypertension [8, 9]. In a study conducted in a diagnostic center, faculty of dentistry in Cairo, Egypt, it was reported that 14.9% of the patients screened were not previously diagnosed with hypertension [10]. Individuals with high blood pressure are at risk of developing medical complications during or after dental treatment and their health status may affect the dental treatment outcomes [11].

One of the risk factor of hypertension in Pakistani population is stress and anxiety [2] which may cause alteration in blood pressure levels [12]. Chronic stress may play a role in the development of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases [13]. It has been reported that prolonged and chronic stress can have an effect on the development of hypertension [14]. Studies have reported that in patients with hypertension, those with multiple dental caries were at risk of cardiovascular complications [15, 16]. Moreover, in a longitudinal research, positive association was reported between the number of lost teeth and the risk of hypertension [17]. It is possible that hypertension and dental health are associated; it may either create or exacerbate oral health issues [18, 19]. There is limited data available on hypertension, perceived stress and oral health status of a subset of Pakistani population.

The aim of this study was to compare the perceived stress scores using a validated tool known as perceived stress scale (PSS-10) and oral health status using decayed, missing, filled teeth (DMFT) index between patients with undiagnosed hypertension, known hypertension, and healthy controls.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in dental out-patient department of CMH Lahore Medical College & Institute of Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan from November 1 to December 31, 2023.

Ethics statement

Study was approved by Ethical Review Committee of CMH Lahore Medical College & Institute of Dentistry (605/ERC/CMH/LMC) and adhered to principles of Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were recruited from the dental out-patient department of Institute of Dentistry. The purpose of the study was explained to the individuals, they were provided time to discuss any queries with one of the investigators. Participants were assured that the data will be kept confidential, and they have the option to withdraw from the study at any stage. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Study participants

Study participants were recruited from dental out-patient department using purposive sampling method and were placed into either of the following three groups: healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive, or known hypertensive. Relevant medical and family history and initial blood pressure measurement was taken to screen potential participants for eligibility based on inclusion criteria stated ahead. Individuals who met the criteria and were willing to participate were selected. Sample size was calculated based on previous study considering 95% confidence level and power of study as 90%, using mean difference reported in DMFT in hypertensives (9.9±8.4) and healthy controls (3±3.6) [15], the calculated sample size was 18 in each group. However, sample size was increased to 36 in each group to increase robustness in statistical analysis. Data were recorded from all participants meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were patients above 21 years of age for all three study groups of healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive and known hypertensives; for healthy group systolic blood < 120 mmHg and diastolic < 80 mmHg taken twice on two different days; for patients with undiagnosed hypertension systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mmHg measured twice on two different days without prior diagnosis of hypertension; and for hypertensive group patient taking anti-hypertensive medications with a known diagnosis of hypertension were included. Exclusion criteria for healthy controls and patients with undiagnosed hypertension were systemic disease, active treatment with immunosuppressant, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, pregnancy, or on any medication. Exclusion criteria for patients with known hypertension were any systemic disease other than hypertension, active treatment with immunosuppressant, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or pregnancy. Individuals with elevated blood pressure (previously known as pre-hypertension) [20] and those with any systemic disease in healthy and undiagnosed hypertension groups and systemic disease other than hypertension in the hypertension group were excluded to reduce bias.

The variables included were age, sex (male/female), average systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements, mean arterial pressure (MAP), perceived stress scores, and DMFT index. For socio-demographics and habits, highest educational attainment, habit of smoking, and alcohol consumption were also recorded.

Blood pressure measurement

Blood pressure was recorded after 15 minutes of comfortable resting on two different days at the same time of the day where two recordings were taken 10 minutes apart (a total of four readings) for all patients by a dental out-patient department nurse. Blood pressure was recorded with Omron digital blood pressure monitor (M10-IT, Omron Healthcare, Kyoto, Japan). Based on average blood pressure readings, patient was either placed in healthy group if systolic blood pressure was < 120 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure was < 80 mmHg or in undiagnosed hypertensive group if systolic blood pressure of ≥ 130 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure of ≥ 80 mmHg measured twice on two different days [4, 20]. Blood pressure readings were also measured of those who were known hypertensives following the same protocol. Based on systolic and diastolic readings, MAP was also calculated of all participants by adding systolic blood pressure and two times diastolic blood pressure divided by three.

Assessment of perceived stress

PSS-10 questionnaire Urdu version was given to the patients [21, 22]. The PSS-10 is a valid and reliable stress assessment tool which determines an individual’s perceived stress levels. It consists of 10 questions that inquire about the person’s feelings concerning daily problems, personal events, and coping mechanisms in the previous month. The sum of the individual scores of the 10 questions results in an overall score out of 40, which categorizes the person’s stress level as low (0–13), moderate (14–26), or high (27–40) [23].

Assessment of oral health status

Assessment of oral health status was done by using DMFT index. Before the data collection, the three investigators recording DMFT were calibrated on 10 patients for intra-examiner and inter-examiner reliability. Inter-examiner and intra-examiner reliability were accessed by intra-class correlation coefficient which was above 0.8 for inter- and intra-examiner reliability. The DMFT score is a commonly used method for evaluating an individual’s oral health status by dental examination using sterilized dental instruments such as mirrors, explorers, tweezers, excavators, gloves, and masks. The criteria for recording the DMFT score involve classifying decayed, missing, and filled teeth based on specific conditions, such as the presence of dental caries or restorations [24]. All 28 teeth were examined during this process. The overall DMFT score was recorded for all participants.

Data analyses

Data was analyzed using SPSS version 27. Age, DMFT score, and PSS-10 score were expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD). Sex (male/female) and stress groups were computed as frequency and percentage. Comparison of age, PSS-10, DMFT, and MAP between healthy, patients with undiagnosed hypertension, and those with known hypertension were done by Kruskal Wallis H test because the continuous variables were not normally distributed as per Shapiro Wilk’s test. For comparison of sex (male/female) and stress groups (mild, moderate, severe) with study groups (healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive, known hypertensive) was done by Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests. Comparisons between PSS-10, DMFT, MAP, and age of healthy and patients with undiagnosed hypertension were done using Spearman’s matrix correlation. A binary logistic regression analysis was conducted with presence of hypertension as dependent variable and sex, age, PSS-10, DMFT, smoking status, and alcohol use as covariates. For all these analyses, p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 108 participants were included in this study, 36 in each group: healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive, and known hypertensive. The mean age of the participants was 48.84±11.84 years (age range 24–69 years). Males were 48 (44.4%) and females were 60 (55.6%) of the total participants. Characteristics of the study participants are given in Table 1. Mean DMFT score was 8.72±5.41 (range 1–28) and mean PSS-10 score (range 10–28) was 20.16±4.33 of the study participants. Among the 36 participants in the hypertensive group, 18 (50%) had uncontrolled hypertension (blood pressure >140/90 mmHg). Table 1 provides a comparison of sex and stress categories with the study groups. The association between sex and blood pressure groups was not significant. However, there were statistically significant differences in stress groups and study groups as given in Table 2.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study participants.

Characteristics n (%) Healthy
n (%)
Undiagnosed hypertensive
n (%)
Known hypertensive
n (%)
Educational attainment Middle school (8 years) 2 (1.9) - - 2 (5.6)
High school (10 years) 32 (29.6) 10 (27.8) 16 (44.4) 6 (16.7)
Intermediate (12 years) 46 (42.6) 16 (44.4) 10 (27.8) 20 (55.6)
Graduate (16 years) 28 (25.9) 10 (27.8) 10 (27.8) 8 (22.2)
Smoking habit Yes 8 (7.4) 2 (5.6) 6 (16.7) -
No 100 (92.6) 34 (94.4) 30 (83.3) 36 (100)
Alcohol consumption Yes 2 (1.9) - - 2 (5.6)
No 106 (98.1) 36 (100) 36 (100) 34 (94.4)

Table 2. Comparison of perceived stress and sex among the study participants.

Variable Total participants
n (%)
Healthy
n (%)
Undiagnosed hypertensive
n (%)
Known hypertensive
n (%)
p value
Sex Male 48 (44.4) 16 (33.3) 20 (41.7) 12 (25) 3.6 (2), 0.165
Female 60 (55.6) 20 (33.3) 16 (26.7) 24 (40)
Perceived stress Low 15 (13.9) 14 (93.3) 1 (6.7) - <0.001*
Moderate 88 (81.5) 22 (25) 32 (36.4) 34 (38.6)
High 5 (4.6) - 3 (60) 2 (30)

Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test used

*Significant at p < 0.05.

Kruskal Wallis H tests were used to compare study groups with age, DMFT, PSS-10, and MAP as shown in Table 3. There were significant relationships between these variables and study groups. DMFT and perceived stress scores were higher in undiagnosed hypertensives and known hypertensives compared to healthy controls.

Table 3. Comparison of age, DMFT and PSS-10 among the study participants.

Variable Healthy
Mean (SD)
Undiagnosed hypertensive
Mean (SD)
Known hypertensive
Mean (SD)
p value
Age (in years) 41.89 (12.08) 53.08 (10.84) 51.56 (9.44) <0.001*
DMFT 5.89 (2.45) 11.28 (6.12) 9 (5.57) <0.001*
PSS-10 17.58 (4.97) 21.08 (3.92) 21.81 (2.63) 0.003*
MAP (mmHg) 89.18 (2.46) 105.50 (5.43) 104.79 (11.29) <0.001*

DMFT: Decayed, missing, filled teeth; PSS: Perceived stress scale; Kruskal Wallis H test

*Significant at p < 0.05.

According to Spearman’s matrix correlation test, moderate positive correlations were seen between MAP and DMFT, MAP and age, DMFT and perceived stress, and DMFT and age in healthy controls and suspected hypertensives, as given in Table 4. When correlation matrix test was applied on all study participants, moderate positive correlations were observed between MAP and perceived stress, MAP and age, MAP and DMFT, DMFT and perceived stress, and DMFT and age, as shown in Table 5.

Table 4. Correlation between age, PSS-10, DMFT, and MAP between healthy and undiagnosed hypertensive participants.

Variable DMFT
(r, p value)
PSS-10
(r, p value)
Age
(r, p value)
PSS-10 0.45, <0.001*
Age 0.33, 0.004* 0.18, 0.127
MAP 0.46, <0.001* 0.19, 0.104 0.38, 0.001*

DMFT: Decayed, missing, filled teeth; MAP: Mean arterial pressure; PSS: Perceived stress scale; Spearman’s matrix correlation test used

*Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5. Correlation between age, PSS-10, DMFT, and MAP between healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive, and known hypertensive participants.

Variable Age
(r, p value)
MAP
(r, p value)
DMFT
(r, p value)
MAP 0.40, <0.001*
DMFT 0.30, 0.002* 0.54, < 0.001*
PSS-10 0.15, 0.127 0.29, 0.002* 0.38, < 0.001*

DMFT: Decayed, missing, filled teeth; MAP: Mean arterial pressure; PSS: Perceived stress scale; Spearman’s matrix correlation test used

*Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

A binary logistic regression analysis was conducted with dependent variable of presence of hypertension (undiagnosed and diagnosed) and the predictor variables added were age, sex, smoking habit, perceived stress scores, and DMFT. There was only one participant who used alcohol, hence; it was not added as predictor variable in the model. The model explained 49% of variance for presence of hypertension and correctly classified 78.7% of cases, with specificity of 61.1% and sensitivity of 87.5%. The result shows that age, perceived stress scores and DMFT were suitable predictors of presence of hypertension in our study participants as given in Table 6.

Table 6. Logistic regression analysis of independent variables with outcome (presence of hypertension) in dental patients.

Presence of hypertension Coefficient p value OR (95% CI)
Male 0.40 0.475 1.49 (0.50–4.47)
Age 0.09 <0.001* 1.09 (1.04–1.15)
DMFT 0.18 0.028* 1.19 (1.02–1.40)
PSS-10 0.22 0.002* 1.24 (1.08–1.42)
Smoker 2.04 0.160 7.72 (0.45–133.65)
R2 49%

DMFT: Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth; PSS: Perceived Stress Scale; R2: Nagelkerke R squared.

*Significant at p = 0.05 level.

Discussion

This study provides valuable insights into the connection between oral health, perceived stress, and elevated blood pressure, emphasizing the critical role dentists can play in identifying potential hypertensive patients. Majority of the participants in undiagnosed hypertensive group completed their high school education and those who were healthy and known hypertensives, have completed 12 years of higher secondary schooling. A large cohort study in Chinese adults showed that the incidences of newly diagnosed hypertension were 27%, 19.4%, and 16.1%, respectively, in the elementary school and below, middle school, and high school degree or above groups [25]. Others have also reported that hypertension is more prevalent in individuals who are less educated [26]. Comparison could not be drawn due to small sample size of this study. Majority of the participants were non-smokers and were not using alcohol. However, participants may have not disclosed their habits to the dentist because of fear of judgment [27].

Our findings demonstrate significant differences in DMFT among systemically healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive, and known hypertensive dental patients. Notably, patients with undiagnosed hypertension and known hypertension exhibited higher DMFT scores compared to systemically healthy patients, suggesting an association between poor oral health and elevated blood pressure. This corroborates with previous studies [15, 19, 28, 29]. Higher mean DMFT scores in patients with pre-hypertension and hypertension compared to healthy controls were reported by others [15]. In this study, the undiagnosed hypertensive group had higher DMFT compared to known hypertensives which could be due to control of elevated blood pressure because of medications or lifestyle change. Routinely incorporating blood pressure screenings into dental appointments allows leveraging the frequency of such visits to identify and manage hypertension early, potentially mitigating its long-term oral health consequences [30, 31]. The observed correlation between MAP and DMFT scores aligns with previous research indicating that hypertension may play a role in deteriorating oral health [17, 32]. Elevated blood pressure can lead to alterations in blood flow and vascular functions, potentially exacerbating oral health problems such as dental caries and periodontal disease [33]. However, there are conflicting results by others where hypertension was not associated with poor oral health as assessed by dental treatment needs [18] or DMFT [15]. This could be because of different characteristics of the study population and smaller sample size. The positive correlation between MAP and age further underscores the impact of aging on both blood pressure and oral health, implying that older individuals are more susceptible to these conditions [18, 34].

In this study, majority of the participants reported moderate stress which corroborates with previous studies [13, 23]. It is interesting to note that almost all the participants with low stress levels were normotensives and only one of the healthy participants was in undiagnosed hypertensive group. Moreover, the mean perceived stress scores were also higher of patients with undiagnosed and known hypertension compared to healthy controls. The association between perceived stress and oral health, as demonstrated by the positive correlation between PSS-10 and DMFT scores, supports existing research on the adverse effects of stress on oral health [35]. The binary logistic regression showed that increase in age, PSS-10, and DMFT increase the risk of having hypertension. It is interesting to note that for every one-year increase in age and one unit increase in PSS-10 and DMFT, the odds of being hypertensive increased to 1.09, 1.24, and 1.19 times, respectively. Age, perceived stress, and DMFT have been reported to be associated with hypertension [2, 13, 18, 36]. Smoking was not a significant predictor of hypertension in the participants which corroborates with a longitudinal study conducted in Indonesia which also did not report an association between smoking and hypertension [37]. Others have also reported that heavy smoking increased the risk of hypertension but not light smoking [38]. There are conflicting results; some have reported that smoking is a risk factor of hypertension [2, 18, 39, 40]. The difference in results could be due to small sample size, incorrect disclosure by the participants, or not recording other variables such as type of tobacco, frequency of daily smoking, lifestyle, and general health status such as body mass index.

Prolonged stress can influence oral health behaviours, such as oral hygiene practices and dietary choices, and can also impact the immune system, making individuals more susceptible to oral diseases. Moreover, the elevated perceived stress levels observed in patients with undiagnosed and known hypertension corroborates with previous studies that stress is correlated with high blood pressure and is one of the risk factors of hypertension [3, 14]. The results also suggest that patients with known hypertension had poor management of their increased blood pressure, which would be because of not adhering to the treatment of hypertension [41]. High psychological stress has been associated with reduced salivary flow rate and xerostomia [42], and xerostomia is also associated with dental caries and poor oral health [43]. It highlights the need for comprehensive patient care that addresses both physical and psychological well-being. Our findings suggest that stress management should be an integral component of oral health care, particularly for individuals with elevated blood pressure [44].

The noticeable differences in DMFT and PSS-10 scores across the three groups highlight the potential benefits of integrating routine blood pressure screenings into dental care settings. Identifying and referring patients with undiagnosed hypertension to medical professionals during dental visits can enable timely intervention, potentially lowering the risk of cardiovascular complications [45].

Dental clinics could implement protocols for routine blood pressure monitoring and stress assessments and establish referral pathways to medical professionals. Integrating dental and general health services can provide a more comprehensive care model, improving patient outcomes. This interdisciplinary approach may be particularly advantageous in settings with limited healthcare access, ensuring that patients receive holistic care and that conditions like hypertension are not overlooked [9, 46].

While this study offers important insights, it is not without limitations. The sample size was relatively small, and the study was carried out at a single centre, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. However, the number of participants in each group were increased from the calculated sample size of 16 to 36 to increase reliability. The use of purposive sampling rather than random sampling introduces potential bias, which could affect the study’s validity. Random sampling would have enhanced the representativeness of the sample. Moreover, due to time constraints socio-demographic characteristics including monthly household income and physical characteristics such as body mass index and lifestyle were not recorded. It could also be possible that the participants were not aware of any systemic disease that they might be having. Future research with larger, more diverse populations, extended duration, and multi-centre studies with inclusion of other parameters of oral health such as periodontal assessment are needed to confirm these results and further explore the complex interactions between hypertension, oral health, and stress.

Conclusion

Our research highlights the significant associations between elevated blood pressure, poor oral health, and increased stress. The findings suggest that dentists can play a crucial role in the early identification of hypertension by incorporating routine blood pressure screenings into dental visits. This proactive approach can lead to timely referrals to healthcare providers for further evaluation and management, thereby preventing complications associated with untreated hypertension, such as cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and kidney failure. Further research is needed to expand our understanding of these relationships and to develop effective strategies for improving health outcomes in hypertensive individuals.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

pone.0311645.s001.xlsx (11.3KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

A de-identified dataset has been supplied in the Supporting Information files. The patient data file has potential sensitive information with a possibility of identification of study participants due to small sample size and study duration mentioned in the manuscript. Ethical Review Committee restricts public sharing of data of Combined Military Hospital due to privacy issues. Interested researchers may contact Chairperson Ethical Review Committee of CMH Lahore Medical College & Institute of Dentistry at erc@cmhlahore.edu.pk for obtaining permission to have access to data.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Zhou B C-LR, Danaei G, Riley LM, Paciorek CJS, Gretchen A. Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants. Lancet. 2021;398(10304):957–80. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01330-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mubarik S, Malik SS, Mubarak R, Gilani M, Masood N. Hypertension associated risk factors in Pakistan: a multifactorial case-control study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019;69(8):1070–3. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Riaz M, Shah G, Asif M, Shah A, Adhikari K, Abu-Shaheen A. Factors associated with hypertension in Pakistan: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0246085. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246085 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schmidt BM, Durão S, Toews I, Bavuma CM, Meerpohl JJ, Kredo T. Screening strategies for hypertension: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(1):e025043. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025043 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kalehoff JP, Oparil S. The story of the silent killer: a history of hypertension: its discovery, diagnosis, treatment, and debates. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2020;22(9):72. doi: 10.1007/s11906-020-01077-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Khan SJ, Asif M, Aslam S, Khan WJ, Hamza SA. Pakistan’s healthcare system: a review of major challenges and the first comprehensive universal health coverage initiative. Cureus. 2023;15(9):e44641. doi: 10.7759/cureus.44641 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bogari DF. Dentists’ knowledge and behavior toward managing hypertensive patients. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22(2):154–61. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_493_18 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Engström S, Berne C, Gahnberg L, Svärdsudd K. Efficacy of screening for high blood pressure in dental health care. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:194. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-194 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rao SS, Ramana Reddy KV, Nath P, Bindra S, Jadaun G. Is screening in dental office an effective method of detecting undiagnosed hypertension? Indian J Dent Res. 2018;29(4):534–9. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_298_17 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hussein H, Al Kashef M, Mesalm M. The screening of hypertension in a dental school: an insight into dentist role and patients drug adherence: a cross-sectional study. Adv Dent J. 2020;2(3):108–16. doi: 10.21608/ADJC.2020.28780.1067 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bogari D, Bakalka G, Hazzazi L, Jan A, Elias W, McDonald N, et al. The prevalence of hypertension in endodontic clinics: a pilot study. Dentistry. 2016;6(4):1–4. doi: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000370 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mohsen Ibrahim M. Hypertension in developing countries: a major challenge for the future. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2018;20(5):38. doi: 10.1007/s11906-018-0839-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lu X, Juon HS, He X, Dallal CM, Wang MQ, Lee S. The association between perceived stress and hypertension among Asian Americans: does social support and social network make a difference? J Community Health. 2019;44(3):451–62. doi: 10.1007/s10900-018-00612-7 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liu MY, Li N, Li WA, Khan H. Association between psychosocial stress and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol Res. 2017;39(6):573–80. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2017.1317904 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Murniwati, Khairiyah N, Maizar PO. Hypertension and its association with oral health status in adults: a pilot study in Padusunan adults community. Int J Med Health Sci. 2017;10(11):539–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim J, Kim HJ, Jeon J, Song TJ. Association between oral health and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension: a nationwide cohort study. J Hypertens. 2022;40(2):374–81. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000003022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Woo HG, Chang Y, Lee JS, Song TJ. Tooth loss is associated with an increased risk of hypertension: a nationwide population-based cohort study. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0253257. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253257 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Almoznino G, Zini A, Kedem R, Protter NE, Zur D, Abramovitz I. Hypertension and its associations with dental status: data from the Dental, Oral, Medical Epidemiological (DOME) nationwide records-based study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(2). doi: 10.3390/jcm10020176 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Paszynska E, Dmitrzak-Weglarz M, Ostalska-Nowicka D, Nowicki M, Gawriolek M, Zachwieja J. Association of oral status and early primary hypertension biomarkers among children and adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21). doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217981 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Carey RM, Whelton PK. Prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: synopsis of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(5):351–8. doi: 10.7326/M17-3203 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zaidi SMIH, Yaqoob N, Naveed A, Gulshan N, Hussain S. Positive attitude and stress among adults with coronary heart diseases in Faisalabad. Khyber Med Uni J. 2018;10(3):146–49. doi: 10.35845/kmuj.2018.17713 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mushtaq R, Ahmed R. Psychometric properties of Pakistani version of perceived stress scale. Pak J Psychol. 2020;51(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gyeltshen D, Deenan A, Wacharasin C. Psychological stress among patients with hypertension in Bhutan. J Facul Nur Burapha Univ. 2021;28(4):63–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.WHO. Oral Health Surveys–Basic Methods 2013. 5th [Available from: https://capp.mau.se/methods-and-indices/#:~:text=The%20sum%20of%20the%20three,is%20calculated%20as%20D%20only.
  • 25.Sun K, Lin D, Li M, Mu Y, Zhao J, Liu C, et al. Association of education levels with the risk of hypertension and hypertension control: a nationwide cohort study in Chinese adults. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022;76(5):451–7. doi: 10.1136/jech-2021-217006 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zacher M. Educational disparities in hypertension prevalence and blood pressure percentiles in the health and retirement study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2023;78(9):1535–44. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbad084 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stuber J, Galea S. Who conceals their smoking status from their health care provider? Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(3):303–7. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntn024 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Miao Y, Vieira AR. Dental caries experience associate with mental issues and hypertension in asian americans. Rio de Janeiro Dent J. 2019;4(3):37–42. doi: 10.29327/24816.4.3–7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ostalska-Nowicka D, Paszyńska E, Dmitrzak-Węglarz M, Neyman-Bartkowiak A, Rabiega A, Zachwieja J, et al. Dental caries-related primary hypertension in children and adolescents: cross-sectional study. Oral Dis. 2021;27(7):1822–33. doi: 10.1111/odi.13700 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Abdulwahab M, Kamal M, Akbar A. Screening for high blood pressure at the dentist’s office. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2022;14:79–85. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S358890 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Blankson PK, Kwamin F, Asibey ABO. Screening at the dental office: an opportunity for bridging the gap in the early diagnosis of hypertension and diabetes in Ghana. Ann Afr Med. 2020;19(1):40–6. doi: 10.4103/aam.aam_22_19 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bajgai GP, Okuma N, Khovidhunkit SP, Thanakun S. Comparison of measured blood pressure levels, hypertension history, oral diseases, and associated factors among Thai dental patients. J Oral Sci. 2022;64(3):236–41. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.22-0057 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Surma S, Romańczyk M, Witalińska-Łabuzek J, Czerniuk MR, Łabuzek K, Filipiak KJ. Periodontitis, blood pressure, and the risk and control of arterial hypertension: epidemiological, clinical, and pathophysiological aspects-review of the literature and clinical trials. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2021;23(5):27. doi: 10.1007/s11906-021-01140-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chiu J, Zheng Y, Lai S, Chan WS, Yeung S, Bow H, et al. Periodontal conditions of essential hypertension attendees to a general hospital in Hong Kong. Aust Dent J. 2020;65(4):259–68. doi: 10.1111/adj.12784 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Abouseta N, Gomaa N, Tassi A, Elzagallaai AA, Rieder MJ, Dixon SJ, et al. Relationships among cortisol, perceived stress, and dental caries experience in adolescents and young adults. Caries Res. 2024;58(4):421–30. doi: 10.1159/000539041 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nawaz M, Jabar M. Association of systemic diseases on tooth loss and oral health. J Biomed Sci. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.4172/2254-609X.10001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sohn K. Relationship of smoking to hypertension in a developing country. Glob Heart. 2018;13(4):285–92. doi: 10.1016/j.gheart.2018.01.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gao N, Liu T, Wang Y, Chen M, Yu L, Fu C, et al. Assessing the association between smoking and hypertension: Smoking status, type of tobacco products, and interaction with alcohol consumption. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1027988. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1027988 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dochi M, Sakata K, Oishi M, Tanaka K, Kobayashi E, Suwazono Y. Smoking as an independent risk factor for hypertension: a 14-year longitudinal study in male Japanese workers. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2009;217(1):37–43. doi: 10.1620/tjem.217.37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bowman TS, Gaziano JM, Buring JE, Sesso HD. A prospective study of cigarette smoking and risk of incident hypertension in women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(21):2085–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Elahi A, Ali AA, Khan AH, Samad Z, Shahab H, Aziz N, et al. Challenges of managing hypertension in Pakistan—a review. Clin Hypertens. 2023;29(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s40885-023-00245-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gholami N, Hosseini Sabzvari B, Razzaghi A, Salah S. Effect of stress, anxiety and depression on unstimulated salivary flow rate and xerostomia. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2017;11(4):247–52. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2017.043 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kakkar M, Barmak AB, Arany S. Anticholinergic medication and dental caries status in middle-aged xerostomia patients-a retrospective study. J Dent Sci. 2022;17(3):1206–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.12.014 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Pedrazini MC, Odone LFG, Groppo MF, Groppo FC. Important blood pressure changes in clinical practice: narrative literature review. Rev Gaúch Odontol. 2022;70:e20220001. doi: 10.1590/1981-86372022000120210054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gupta K, Kumar S, Anand Kukkamalla M, Taneja V, Syed GA, Pullishery F, et al. Dental management considerations for patients with cardiovascular disease-a narrative review. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2022;23(8):261. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2308261 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Elias MF, Goodell AL. The need for accurate data on blood pressure measurement in the dental office. Am J Hypertens. 2020;33(4):297–300. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpaa023 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hadi Ghasemi

19 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-30378Comparison of perceived stress and oral health status between healthy, suspected hypertensive, and known hypertensive dental patientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Atif, 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 03 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hadi Ghasemi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <S1 dataset.xlsx>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (Age), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Article is good in writing and structure. However the relevance of the topic to the disease described is not clearly referred to and it is only the health behavior which is addressed . Suggestion is to edit the title accordingly.

Reviewer #2: This study examines the association between oral health status, perceived stress, and hypertension among dental patients. Conducted at the CMH Lahore Medical College & Institute of Dentistry in Pakistan, the research involved 108 participants, divided into three groups: healthy, suspected hypertensive, and known hypertensive patients. Using the Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) index and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), the study found significant correlations between elevated blood pressure, higher perceived stress, and deteriorated oral health. The study emphasizes the potential role of dentists in identifying undiagnosed hypertension through routine screenings during dental visits.

Critique:

1. Sample Size and Generalizability: The study's relatively small sample size and its focus on a single institution limit the generalizability of the findings. A larger, multi-center study would provide more robust and widely applicable results.

2. Sampling Method: The use of purposive sampling rather than random sampling introduces potential bias, which could affect the study’s validity. Random sampling would have enhanced the representativeness of the sample.

3. Lack of Control for Confounding Variables: The study does not account for potential confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, lifestyle factors (like diet and exercise), and other health conditions that could influence both stress and oral health. This omission weakens the conclusions drawn about the direct relationship between hypertension, stress, and oral health.

4. Measurement Tools: While the DMFT index and PSS-10 are established tools, the study could benefit from a broader assessment of oral health and stress. Including measures like periodontal health or using more detailed psychological assessments might offer a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships explored.

5. Limited Discussion on Mechanisms: The discussion touches on possible links between hypertension and oral health but lacks a deeper exploration of the biological or behavioral mechanisms that might explain these relationships. Providing more context from existing literature would strengthen the study’s theoretical foundation.

6. Short Study Duration: The study was conducted over just two months, which may not adequately capture the variations in stress and oral health that can occur over longer periods. Longitudinal studies would be better suited to observe the long-term effects of stress and hypertension on oral health.

7. Absence of Longitudinal Data: The cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw causal inferences. Future research could benefit from a longitudinal approach to better establish the temporal relationship between hypertension, stress, and oral health deterioration.

Overall, while the study offers valuable insights into the potential role of dentists in early hypertension detection, addressing these limitations in future research would enhance the reliability and impact of the findings.

Reviewer #3: The paper evaluated the perceived stress (by PSS-10 questionnaire) and oral health status (by using DMFT index) between patients with hypertension. The respected Authors categorized patients into healthy, suspected hypertensive, and known hypertensive dental patients. Overall, the article is well-written and has used validated questionnaires for obtaining the needed metrics. Since the association was examined using Chi-square test and correlation, the yielded links could be a result some variables that have not been adjusted for.

Although important studies have been conducted on the association of perceived stress and oral hygiene care separately, the novelty of the present study is to conduct the present study on patients into healthy, suspected hypertensive, and known hypertensive patients.

Additionally, there are some issues that I would like address.

1. The respected authors have used the term “suspected hypertension” which is not quit right. Based on the explained method, this includes patients with two times SBPs >130 or DBP>90. This would translate to undiagnosed HTN rather than suspects. This change would also mandate some revisions for the rationales stated for the rate of oral health status in this population in the discussion section.

2. I recommend using “patients with hypertension” instead of “hypertensive patients” across the manuscript as it has negative burden.

3. Please provide the exact purposive sampling method in line 85 as it can result in selection bias.

4. Lines 114- 117 are repeated and can be removed.

5. The reference for validation of perceived stress, is based on age 19-30 years. As older population exist in the current study, I suggest elaborating it as A limitation of the study.

6. In method section, were the continuous variables normally distributed? I’d suggest providing the appropriate statistical metrics for them.

7. Table 1 and 2 have the duplicate data due to the gender of the population in the study.

8. In table 1 and result section, I’d highly recommend to add three extra columns reporting the characteristics based on the hypertension groups and incorporating them accordingly to the discussion section, as well.

9. Caution should be used when definitive association or equivalent terms are used in the result or discussion section, as the probable role of other possible co variates was not accounted for in this article. So, if possible, conducting a regression, with adjusting for confounding variables could significantly improve the conclusions of the study.

10. In line 197, please provide more detail to compare your finding with other studies.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript is an important one and is well written.

However,

1. Reference is needed for line 44.

2. One or more references should be included in Page 3 line 60, page 7 line 214 since studies were mentioned.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ghassem Ansari

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Fatemeh Farshad

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 10;19(10):e0311645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311645.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Sep 2024

We have incorporated the suggestions into the revised manuscript. Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. A detailed response and the changes incorporated are given below:

Suggestions by Academic Editor:

Thank you for highlighting a very important aspect related to anonymity of the data. We have removed age column from the data.

Comments 1-4:

We thank the reviewers for their valuable time and for constructive feedback which has undoubtedly improved the revised manuscript.

Comment 5:

For Reviewer 1: We thank you for your review. For minor grammatical errors, these have been corrected on page 6, 7, 15, 17 and 18. Kindly let me know if there is anything specific that I might have missed.

For Reviewers 2,3,4: We are thankful for your valuable suggestions and comments working on which have undoubtedly improved the manuscript. We would highly appreciate if you could go through the revised manuscript and guide further if more corrections are needed. The following corrections are done:

Reviewer’s suggestion

Reviewer 1:

Article is good in writing and structure. However, the relevance of the topic to the disease described is not clearly referred to and it is only the health behavior which is addressed. Suggestion is to edit the title accordingly A: The title of the manuscript has been revised. Please let us know if the revised title is appropriate. Page 1 and 2

Reviewer 2:

1. Small sample size and its focus on a single institution limit the generalizability of the findings. A larger, multi-center study would provide more robust and widely applicable results.

A: This has been added in the last paragraph of discussion as the limitation of this study. line 285-297

2. The use of purposive sampling rather than random sampling introduces potential bias, which could affect the study’s validity. Random sampling would have enhanced the representativeness of the sample.

A: It has been incorporated as study limitation line 288-291

3. Lack of control for confounding variables. The study does not account for potential confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, lifestyle factors (like diet and exercise), and other health conditions that could influence both stress and oral health. This omission weakens the conclusions drawn about the direct relationship between hypertension, stress, and oral health.

A: We have added table 6 for binary logistic regression analysis which accounts for the adjustment of possible confounders. Other limitations were mentioned in the last paragraph of discussion. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. line 156-158

4. Measurement Tools: While the DMFT index and PSS-10 are established tools, the study could benefit from a broader assessment of oral health and stress. Including measures like periodontal health or using more detailed psychological assessments might offer a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships explored.

A: It went beyond our study scope. However, we have included the suggestions in limitations and future recommendations line 294-297

5. Limited Discussion on Mechanisms: The discussion touches on possible links between hypertension and oral health but lacks a deeper exploration of the biological or behavioral mechanisms that might explain these relationships. Providing more context from existing literature would strengthen the study’s theoretical foundation.

A: We have added more details in discussion session about possible link between hypertension, stress and oral health. line 274-276

6. Short Study Duration: The study was conducted over just two months, which may not adequately capture the variations in stress and oral health that can occur over longer periods. Longitudinal studies would be better suited to observe the long-term effects of stress and hypertension on oral health.

A: We have included this as limitation. line 294-297

7. Absence of Longitudinal Data: The cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw causal inferences. Future research could benefit from a longitudinal approach to better establish the temporal relationship between hypertension, stress, and oral health deterioration.

A: We have included this as limitation and future recommendations line 294-297

Reviewer 3

1. The respected authors have used the term “suspected hypertension” which is not quit right. Based on the explained method, this includes patients with two times SBPs >130 or DBP>90. This would translate to undiagnosed HTN rather than suspects. This change would also mandate some revisions for the rationales stated for the rate of oral health status in this population in the discussion section.

A: We used suspected hypertension as we being dentists were not able to diagnose hypertension on our own and were in a position to refer such patients for proper diagnosis form a medical specialist. We have rephrased suspected hypertension with undiagnosed hypertension across the manuscript. All

2. I recommend using “patients with hypertension” instead of “hypertensive patients” across the manuscript as it has negative burden.

A: Thank you for your valuable input. It has been corrected across the manuscript. All

3. Please provide the exact purposive sampling method in line 85 as it can result in selection bias.

A: It is added. Line 91-94

4. Lines 114-117 are repeated and can be removed.

A: It has been rephrased and repetition removed. Line 119

5. The reference for validation of perceived stress, is based on age 19-30 years. As older population exist in the current study, I suggest elaborating it as A limitation of the study

A: We have added another reference for perceived stress in comparative age of 18-69 years. Thank you for highlighting this. line 129

6. In method section, were the continuous variables normally distributed? I’d suggest providing the appropriate statistical metrics for them.

A: It has been added that continuous variables were not normally distributed as per Shapiro Wilk’s test. Hence, non-parametric Kruskal Wallis test was used for comparison. line 149-152

7. Table 1 and 2 have the duplicate data due to the gender of the population in the study.

A: Sex from table 1 has been removed. Table 1 page 7

8. In table 1 and result section, I’d highly recommend to add three extra columns reporting the characteristics based on the hypertension groups and incorporating them accordingly to the discussion section, as well.

A: Table has been modified and relevant discussion added. Table 1 page 7, line 216-225

9. Caution should be used when definitive association or equivalent terms are used in the result or discussion section, as the probable role of other possible co variates was not accounted for in this article. So, if possible, conducting a regression, with adjusting for confounding variables could significantly improve the conclusions of the study.

A: We have conducted binary regression analysis and have included it in results and discussion. line 198-205, Table 6, 255-266

10. In line 197, please provide more detail to compare your finding with other studies.

A: We have included another reference. line 225, 258-259

Reviewer 4

1. Reference is needed for line 44.

A: Thank you for highlighting very important point. Reference is added. line 47

2. One or more references should be included in Page 3 line 60, page 7 line 214 since studies were mentioned.

A: References are added. line 64, 243

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0311645.s002.docx (30.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Hadi Ghasemi

24 Sep 2024

Comparison of perceived stress and oral health status using Perceived Stress Scale and DMFT index between healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive, and known hypertensive dental patients

PONE-D-24-30378R1

Dear Dr. Saira Atif

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hadi Ghasemi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: I read the paper entitled “Comparison of perceived stress and oral health status using Perceived Stress Scale and DMFT index between healthy, undiagnosed hypertensive, and known hypertensive dental patients” with great interest and congratulate the honorable authors for their excellent work. The article is well-written and has a meticulously answered all previous comments. Just I have to mentioned that Table 6 does not have any title. Please consider that as well.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed. The manuscript is technically sound and data analysis good. The manuscript is written in standard English.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Fatemeh Farshad

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Hadi Ghasemi

1 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-30378R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Atif,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hadi Ghasemi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset

    (XLSX)

    pone.0311645.s001.xlsx (11.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0311645.s002.docx (30.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    A de-identified dataset has been supplied in the Supporting Information files. The patient data file has potential sensitive information with a possibility of identification of study participants due to small sample size and study duration mentioned in the manuscript. Ethical Review Committee restricts public sharing of data of Combined Military Hospital due to privacy issues. Interested researchers may contact Chairperson Ethical Review Committee of CMH Lahore Medical College & Institute of Dentistry at erc@cmhlahore.edu.pk for obtaining permission to have access to data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES