Many studies have shown the correlation between bruxism and stress that affects the quality of life of university students. The present study highlights this correlation—for the first time—in a group of university students in Italy. We have investigated the prevalence of awake and asleep bruxism and its correlation with perceived stress in a group of 278 Italian undergraduate students (117 M). A self report questionnaire was constructed using a socio-demographic test, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and the item n. 8 of the Fonseca Questionnaire for presence of bruxism. The perceived stress score using PSS-10 scale was 32.2 (SD 4.6, 95% CL 31.6–32.7) for all the subjects, with significant gender difference: M = 31.2 and F = 32.9 (P = 0.0019). The prevalence for awake bruxism was 37.9% (F = 40.8%; M = 34.2%,), while for sleep bruxism was 31.8% (F = 33.3%; M = 29.1%), both without significant gender difference. A positive correlation, with significant concordance and dependence, between stress score and awake bruxism was present for male students only. University students showed higher bruxism and stress levels compared to the general population, with higher stress for females, but, even if female students show higher stress, a correlation between stress and bruxism exists only for male gender. Further studies should be performed.

Besides the well-known systemic factors for periodontal and peri-implant diseases, additional co-factors, such as chronic stress and depression, may also affect disease onset and progression as well as treatment responsiveness. Neurobiological and neurobehavioral pathogenic links between chronic stress and depression, on the one side, and periodontitis and peri-implantitis, on the other side, which have been little investigated and principally related to necrotizing periodontal disease, have been reviewed, along with their putative interconnections with periodontal immune–microbiome balance. Rising evidence suggest that dysregulated neurobiological and neurobehavioral factors, as well as periodontal immune–microbiome unbalance, all related to chronic stress and depression, may crucially interact and thus represent contributing factors in the genesis and worsening not only of necrotizing periodontal lesions, but also of chronic periodontitis and peri-implantitis. Such potential interconnections may be even more relevant in recurrent and aggressive cases of periodontal and peri-implant disease, which are frequently refractory to therapy, and may, if corroborated, coherently pave the way for personalized prevention and treatment strategies, possibly targeting immune–microbiome unbalance and neurobehavioral factors and focusing on neurobiological ones, especially in chronically stressed and depressed subjects with periodontitis and peri-implantitis.

To explain the low employment rates of people with disabilities (PwDs), emerging debates have revealed an unexploited potential impact of assistive technology (AT) on human talent and the inclusion process. This article provides a systematic review to critically evaluate the current trends in the literature on AT. A systematic review was performed according to the inclusion criteria of the PRISMA-S guidelines, followed by a thematic analysis identifying the main themes by which the literature on the subject is organized. Finally, the Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model was used to deepen the contents taken into consideration in the scientific literature and to discuss the concept of workplace inclusion and its use. Forty-one studies fully met the eligibility criteria of the systematic review. The thematic analysis produced four clusters related to the impact and characteristics of AT in the workplace. Overall, the use of the HAAT model highlighted a lack of studies on the affective and socio-cultural dimensions that characterize the use of AT in the workplace. It is concluded that the deployment of AT can and should work on multiple levels to shape the workplace experiences of PwDs.

With the advent of Covid-19, health workers have been under constant physical and psychological pressure. Italy was among the first countries to face the health emergency in a period of great uncertainty about the virus and the ways to treat patients. The present study aims to analyse the levels of emotional distress (ED) and psychosomatic symptoms (PS) of Italian frontline health workers during the Covid-19 emergency, and their relationship with the evaluation of the institutional responses received.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the psychological factors of health perception, mistrust, anxiety, fear, and indecision of Italians vaccinated against COVID-19, and conduct an analysis of the relationships between these factors and other variables: sex, vaccine priority ministerial categories, and the type and dose of vaccine. The participants included 1564 subjects who joined the vaccination campaign at the COVID-19 Vaccination Center in Salerno, Italy. A survey was conducted in the reference period March–April 2021 using a brief anamnestic questionnaire. In addition, the following standardized scales were used: the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y) and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). The results showed that, in terms of the type of vaccine received, the interviewees felt more confident in having received the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech, 23.5%) and Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca, 18.6%) vaccines—feeling less tense (2.1%; Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) = 3.2%), frightened (1%; Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) = 1.4%), not at all nervous (61.1%; Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), 43.6%), and not at all/undecided (67.9%; Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), 58.6%). Regarding the mood and psychological states considered at the different vaccine administration times, other important differences emerged as the interviewees reported higher levels of tension, nervousness, and fear during the first phase of vaccine administration. Specifically, 40.7% (second dose, 32.7%) felt somewhat tense at the first dose, 26.4% felt frightened (second dose, 21.8%), and 33.8% felt nervous (second dose, 26.8%). The perceived state of health also increased at the end of the vaccination cycle, as, at the second dose, 15.4% of the sample reported an evaluation of “excellent” (first dose, 12.4%).