[Psychosocial risk factors for cancer development]. / Psychosoziale Einflussfaktoren für die Krebsentstehung.

Cancer is one of the most frequent causes of death in Germany. The reasons of various cancer diseases still remain uncertain. There is a long-standing discussion about associations between personality, depression, stress, and stressful life events, respectively, and the development of malignant neoplasms. Evidence for a role of psychosocial factors in development of cancer is not unequivocal despite many years of research on the subject. Current prospective investigations do not support the conventional wisdom of a direct influence for personality in the development of cancer. Much of the research has been impaired by methodological flaws such as inadequate sample size, failure to adjust for potential confounders, lengths of follow-up, use of a variation of different measurements of cancer, and psychosocial variables. Furthermore, specific personality traits and various life events are associated with certain health-related behavior and lifestyle factors, e.g., smoking or an unhealthy nutrition. These unhealthy habits can increase cancer risk. Psychological parameters may alter immune and endocrine function and it has long been hypothesized that, through this pathway, psychosocial factors may affect cancer incidence. In conclusion, study results to substantiate the role of psychosocial factors in the development of various cancers are inconclusive. Contradictory results may be explained by methodological shortcomings. Further studies are required to pursue this question further.

Socioeconomic indicators and prosthetic replacement of missing teeth in a working-age population--results of the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP).

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the possible effects of the socioeconomic status (SES) on the prosthetic replacement of missing teeth in working-age people and to explore the role of potential confounders. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from 2310 German adults aged 30-59 years. The relationship between each of the three SES indicators (education, income, and occupational status) and dental prostheses were examined by multinomial logistic regression analyses. For that, partially dentate participants with suboptimal and no replacement of missing teeth were compared with partially dentate participants having optimal replacement. Potential confounders (age, sex, dental status, social network and social support) were entered if their inclusion in the model led to >or= 10% change in the coefficient of interest. RESULTS: Social network and social support did not meet the criterion for confounding. In the maxilla, having no replacement was positively associated with lower categories for each of the three SES indicators [Odds ratios (OR) between 1.6 and 2.1; 95% confidence intervals (CI) between 1.1 and 3.4]. Low occupational status was the single predictor for suboptimal dental prostheses (OR=3.2; 95% CI: 1.6-6.2). In the mandible, occupational status showed no association with the prosthetic status, whereas low educational level and low household income were determinants for having no replacement (OR=1.9 and 1.9, 95% CI: 1.0-3.5 and 1.1-3.0, respectively). Low household income was the single determinant for suboptimal replacement of missing teeth (OR=2.4, 95% CI=1.1-5.2). CONCLUSION: The findings may indicate the relevance of the financing of prosthodontic treatment. The strong association between various forms of upper dentures and occupational prestige can be seen as key contributing concept to how individuals' characteristics affect the outcome in prosthodontic care.