Investigating oral health among US adults with sleep disorder: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the relationship between sleep disorders and oral health outcomes among a representative sample of the United States population. METHODS: The study sample comprised 6,161 participants who participated in the NHANES 2017-2018, representing a population of 255,939,599. Oral health outcomes were assessed using the Oral Health Questionnaire (OHQ), covering dental pain, periodontal disease, bone loss, emotional perceptions of oral health, and impact on daily life. Sleep disorders were evaluated using questions related to sleep trouble and daytime sleepiness. RESULTS: Analysis of the NHANES 2017-2018 dataset, revealed notable associations between sleep disorders and oral health outcomes. Individuals with sleep disorders were more likely to report dental pain (19.79% vs. 11.8%), periodontal issues (19.5% vs. 12.25%), and feeling bad or embarrassed about their oral health (21% vs. 12%), compared to those without sleep disorders. Difficulty due to oral health issues was also more prevalent among participants with sleep disorders (32.6% vs. 12.9%). Adjusted models demonstrated that individuals with sleep disorders had a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing oral aches [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.58 (1.22-2.22)], reporting negative emotions about oral health [aOR = 1.59 (1.06-2.37)], and encountering challenges in school or job performance [aOR = 2.27 (1.47-3.51)], compared to individuals without sleep disorders (refer to Table 3). Other significant covariates affecting oral health outcomes included smoking, income, and education level. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a compelling association between sleep disorders and adverse oral health outcomes in the U.S.

Reactivation of herpesviruses during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To provide a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the cumulative incidence (incidence proportion) of human herpesvirus (HHV) reactivation among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE up to 25 September 2022, with no language restrictions. All interventional and observational studies enrolling patients with confirmed COVID-19 and providing data regarding HHV reactivation were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses. We included information from 32 studies. HHV reactivation was considered a positive polymerase chain reaction result taken at the time of COVID-19 infection. Most of the included patients were severe COVID-19 cases. The pooled cumulative incidence estimate was 38% (95% Confidence Intervals [CI], 28%-50%, I2  = 86%) for herpes simplex virus (HSV), 19% (95% CI, 13%-28%, I2  = 87%) for cytomegalovirus (CMV), 45% (95% CI, 28%-63%, I2  = 96%) for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), 18% (95% CI, 8%-35%) for human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6), 44% (95% CI, 32%-56%) for human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-26%) for human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8). There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry based on visual inspection and Egger's regression test for the results of HSV (p = 0.84), CMV (p = 0.82), and EBV (p = 0.27) reactivation. In conclusion, the identification of HHV reactivation in severe COVID-19 patients is helpful in the management of patients as well as the prevention of complications. Further research is required to elucidate the interaction between HHVs and COVID-19. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022321973.