4.1 Article

The periodontal status of indirectly lead-exposed apprentices working in autorepair workshops

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 599-606

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0748233708090906

关键词

gingivitis; lead toxicity; oxidative damage; oxidative stress; periodontitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the periodontal health status of lead-exposed apprentices and to search the correlation between clinical periodontal parameters and either blood lead or oxidative stress/damage indices in erythrocytes. Sixty male subjects were recruited for this study (30 apprentices and 30 controls). The periodontal health status was determined with gingival index, plaque index, gingival bleeding time index, probing depth, and clinical attachment level records. Additionally, blood lead level and indices of oxidative stress (glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase), catalase activities and damage (malondialdehyde concentration) in erythrocytes were determined. The results showed that lead level was significantly higher in apprentices than in controls (P < 0.05). None of the clinical periodontal parameters and oxidative stress/damage indices were significantly different between the groups (P > 0.05). Significant correlation between plaque index and catalase, probing depth and superoxide dismutase, clinical attachment level and superoxide dismutase, and clinical attachment level and malondialdehyde in apprentices group (P < 0.05), and gingival bleeding time index and glutathione peroxidase in control group were found (P < 0.05). In multiple regression analysis, there were statistically significant associations between gingival index and working status, family income and either probing depth or clinical attachment level (P < 0.05). The results of this study showed significant association between the clinical periodontal parameters and oxidative stress/damage indices in apprentices indirectly exposed to low levels of lead.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据