Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) have been traditionally associated with psychosocial factors; however, occupational stress as a factor related to TMD has not been adequately assessed in the literature. The aim was to investigate the association between stress at work and TMD on adult paid workers. An electronic search included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and LILACS databases. Manual searches in the included articles’ reference and gray literature were performed. There were no restrictions regarding language or publication period. The inclusion criteria comprised observational studies with paid workers of any category, of both sexes, above 18 years old, assessing occupational stress/stress or distress and TMD as diagnosis or isolated signs and symptoms. Methodological quality was evaluated using Joanna Briggs tools. We narratively assessed the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We collected 12 studies. 50% reported a positive association between stress and TMD diagnostic across various job categories. On the other hand, TMJ sounds (a TMD sign) and work stress were associated only in a musicians’ population. However, the shortage of eligible articles and the methodological limitations provided a very low certainty of the evidence; only 4 of the studies used validated tools for both stress and TMD (2 reporting positive association). The association between stress and TMD is inconclusive by the available data. In the future, we expect more robust epidemiologic studies addressing these relevant aspects.

Background/Objectives: Environmental sustainability is increasingly recognized as a key component of healthcare governance, and dentistry represents a high-impact subsector due to its intensive use of materials, resources, and biosafety-driven disposables. Despite rising scientific interest, available evidence remains fragmented and methodologically heterogeneous. This study aims to systematically map the existing review-based evidence on sustainability in oral healthcare services. Methods: The protocol was prospectively registered on OSF. Narrative, scoping, and systematic reviews evaluating sustainability within oral healthcare services were eligible. Comprehensive searches were conducted in Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and regional databases (WPRIM, WHOLIS, BBO, BDENF, IBECS, PIE, ColecionaSUS), without language or date restrictions. Two reviewers independently screened studies via Rayyan, resolved discrepancies by consensus, and extracted descriptive and thematic data using a structured Population-Concept–Context eligibility framework. A qualitative inductive synthesis identified recurring domains, and methodological rigor was appraised with a modified 12-item AMSTAR-2 tool. Results: Of 5793 records retrieved, 17 reviews met inclusion criteria (8 narrative, 5 scoping, 4 systematic). Most publications (82.4%) were from the past five years. Three thematic axes were identified: (1) the 4Rs (rethink, reduce, recycle, reuse); (2) waste and effluent management; and (3) barriers, practices, and sustainability policies. Evidence was strongly concentrated in high-income countries, and methodological quality varied widely, with ten reviews scoring below 60% on AMSTAR-2. Conclusions: Review-based evidence on sustainable dentistry is expanding yet remains limited and operational in focus. The literature remains disproportionately centered on operational issues—primarily waste management and material consumption—while broader systemic determinants such as governance, equity, financing, and professional education receive comparatively little attention. Strengthening methodological rigor, harmonizing sustainability indicators, and advancing empirical evaluations are essential for guiding equitable and environmentally responsible oral healthcare systems.

To assess the agreement among three different online drug-drug interaction (DDI) checkers for the detection of psychotropic drug interactions among dental patients in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Context/Objectives: Environmental sustainability has become a growing concern in oral health, as dental care involves materials, devices, energy consumption, water usage, transportation, and complex supply chains, resulting in the generation of various types of waste and emissions. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) offers a methodological framework for evaluating environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of products, procedures, services, and population-level interventions. This scoping review aimed to map how LCA has been applied to assess environmental impacts related to oral health. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Information about the review was made available through a public Open Science Framework project created on 20 February 2026. Primary studies applying LCA to clinical dental procedures, dental materials and devices, oral health services, or population-level preventive interventions were included. Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library, as well as MEDLINE, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, and BINACIS through the Virtual Health Library (BVS) interface. The final search was conducted on 11 February 2026, without language or publication year restrictions. Data were narratively synthesized and organized according to study characteristics, methodological aspects, impact categories, environmental hotspots, and reported limitations. Results: Twenty-one studies published between 2014 and 2026 were included, of which 20 (95.2%) had bibliographic publication years of 2020 or later. The evidence was concentrated in Northern Hemisphere countries. Dental materials and devices were the most frequently investigated subjects, followed by clinical procedures, population-level preventive interventions, and oral health services. Among the included publications, openLCA was reported in 17 (81.0%) and ecoinvent in 20 (95.2%). Climate change, expressed as CO₂ equivalents, was a frequently reported impact category. Reported environmental hotspots included single-use materials, energy consumption, sterilization and reprocessing, transportation, and material manufacturing. The included studies showed heterogeneity in methodological choices and assessment contexts. Conclusions: This scoping review maps the methodological characteristics, environmental hotspots, and research gaps in the application of LCA to oral healthcare. The heterogeneity of the available evidence limits direct comparisons and does not establish the environmental superiority of specific dental practices. Clinical, institutional, and policy decisions require context-specific assessments, functionally equivalent comparisons, and explicit consideration of uncertainty.