Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2018 Jul 24;2018:1823189. doi: 10.1155/2018/1823189

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2018 Ervin Taso et al.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PMC Copyright notice

(a–f) The influence of tested restorations on GCF redox status of dental patients. OS parameters (GSH, MDA, and SOD) in GCF were presented in respect to teeth position (anterior and posterior) with given number of patients per posterior and anterior treated teeth. (a) The influence of Amg on GCF redox status of dental patients. Amg group: patients with posterior treated teeth only (n = 14 patients): 8 were from K2 and 6 from K5 group. The amount of sealed Amg: 1.318571 ± 0.71267 g. (b) The influence of ZPoC on GCF redox status of dental patients. Patients with posterior and anterior treated teeth (n = 14 patients): 12 patients with posterior treated teeth (3 from K2, 4 from K3, and 5 form K4 group) and 2 patients with anterior treated teeth (2 from K2 group). The amount of sealed ZPoC for anterior was 0.035 ± 0.025 g and posterior was 0.229 ± 0.167 g. (c) The influence of Tetric EvoCeram on GCF redox status of dental patients. Patients with posterior and anterior treated teeth (n = 17 patients): 10 patients with posterior treated teeth (6 from K2 and 4 from K5 group) and 7 patients with anterior treated teeth (6 from K2 and 1 from K5 group). The amount of sealed TEC for anterior was 0.029 ± 0.02253 g and posterior was 0.152 ± 0.159 g. (d) The influence of BF on GCF redox status of dental patients. Patients with posterior and anterior treated teeth (n = 15 patients): 8 patients with posterior and 7 with anterior treated teeth (all from K2 group). The amount of sealed BF for anterior: 0.029 ± 0.014 g and posterior 0.064 ± 0.042 g. (e) The influence of GIC on GCF redox status of dental patients. Patients with posterior and anterior treated teeth (n = 14 patients): 12 patients with posterior treated teeth (9 from K2, 2 from K3, and 1 from K5 group) and 2 patients with anterior treated teeth, from K2 group. The amount of sealed GIC for anterior was 0.035 ± 0.015 g and posterior was 0.168 ± 0.153 g. (f) The influence of ZPhC on GCF redox status of dental patients. Patients with posterior and anterior treated teeth (n = 14 patients): 11 patients with posterior treated teeth (5 from K2, 3 from K3, 1from K4, and 2 from K5 group) and 3 patients with anterior treated teeth (2 from K2 and 1 from K3 group). The amount of sealed ZPhC for anterior was 0.08 ± 0.081 g and posterior was 0.235 ± 0.145 g.