Depression symptoms, anxiety, and stress among undergraduate entrance admission seeking students in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Intense academic pressure and unhealthy competition have turned the university entrance exam scenario in Bangladesh into a Pandora's Box, which might cause mental health difficulties among young students. However, there is a severe scarcity of studies concerning such issues of university entrance examination-seeking students in Bangladesh. Methods: This study aimed to assess the prevalence and associated factors of depression symptoms, anxiety, and stress among undergraduate entrance admission-seeking students in Bangladesh. A cross-sectional study design was followed using an online tool including socio-demographic questions, and the 21-item Bangla Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (BDASS-21). The survey form was completed by 452 Bangladeshi students who passed the higher secondary certificate (HSC) examination in 2020 and were planning to get admission to the undergraduate level during the data collection. Results: The prevalence of mild to extremely severe levels of depression symptoms, anxiety, and stress was 57.7%, 61.4%, and 44.6%, respectively. Females were more likely to have depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms than males. The students from science backgrounds were at higher risk of developing depression and stress symptoms when compared with students from business studies backgrounds. Besides, students with a previous history of mental illness, a preference for getting admitted into the public university, and less monthly family income (<25,000 BDT) were more likely to develop depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. In addition, students with a previous history of neurological disorders were more likely to develop anxiety symptoms than those without. Conclusion: This study revealed a high level of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms among undergraduate entrance admission-seeking students, which calls for in-depth exploratory investigations. Adequate low-intensity interventions should be designed to support this young population.

A correlation between bone (B), insertion torque (IT), and implant stability (S): BITS score.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although criteria for assessing bone quality have been reported, an overall score that correlates bone quality with the primary stability and secondary stability of implants is not yet available. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to propose a scoring index that will establish a correlation among the bone density values from computed tomography, maximum insertion torque values, and resonance frequency analysis in different phases of implant treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, 60 implant sites were evaluated to assess bone density (Hounsfield units), insertion torque values (Ncm), and primary stability and secondary stability (implant stability quotient values obtained by using resonance frequency analysis). On the basis of computed tomography data, the bone was classified as D1 to D4. The insertion torque was noted and classified into 2 groups, A and B. The implant stability quotient values obtained from resonance frequency analysis depicting primary stability and secondary stability were classified into 5 groups. The primary score noted was a result of the values obtained for the 3 parameters at the time of implant placement. The secondary score was obtained by considering the values of the bone density and resonance frequency analysis recorded at different time intervals. RESULTS: Bone densities of D2, D3, and D4 were noted, dividing the bone type into 3 groups. The maximum torque noted in the study was 40 Ncm. The difference between various insertion torque values and bone types was found to be statistically nonsignificant. Higher mean implant stability quotient values were obtained for primary and secondary stability for the D2 bone than for D3 and D4 bone. When analyzed according to the time of insertion, the mean values increased at second stage surgery in all bone types. The difference in mean values among all bone types was found to be statistically significant (P<.001). A comparison of primary and secondary implant stability quotient values in all bone types did not find any statistical significance (P=.780). A score was recorded at the time of implant placement and at the time of second stage surgery, and the prosthetic treatment was planned accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The score highlights the importance of considering the association of bone quality, insertion torque values, and stability as denoted by implant stability quotient throughout treatment. Based on the variation in the score noted at recall visits, alterations in the treatment plan can be made with respect to the healing period and prosthetic design.