## 3 Results  
Table 1 shows the oral hygiene and periodontal status of bruxists and non-bruxists. No significant differences were found between these subgroups. Table 2 compares the degree of TWI on individual teeth in both patient groups. Figures 2 and 3 present the results for GCF volume and interleukin-1\(\upbeta\) concentration. Table 3 shows also the \(p\)-values for comparing non-bruxists and bruxists. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & **Bruxists** & **Non-Bruxists** \\  & **M [Q1–Q3]** & **M [Q1–Q3]** \\ \hline Approximal plaque index [\%] & 23.1 [16.7–26.9] & 15.4 [10.0–23.1] \\ Plaque index & 0.21 [0.13–0.21] & 0.08 [0.00–0.25] \\ Sulcus bleeding index [\%] & 0.0 [0.0–3.8] & 0.0 [0.0–3.8] \\ Gingival index & 0.13 [0.13–0.21] & 0.08 [0.04–0.17] \\ Periodontal probing depth [mm] & 1.15 [1.02–1.29] & 1.35 [1.04–1.73] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Oral hygiene and periodontal status. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**TWI**} & **Bruxists** & **Non-Bruxists** & **\multirow{2}{*}{_p-Value_} \\  & **M [Q1–Q3]** & **M [Q1–Q3]** & & \\ \hline
16 & 1.0 [1.0–2.0] & 0.0 [0.0–1.0] & 0.013 * \\
11 & 1.0 [1.0–2.0] & 1.0 [0.0–1.0] & 0.058 \\
24 & 1.0 [1.0–2.0] & 0.0 [0.0–0.0] & 0.010 * \\
36 & 1.0 [1.0–2.0] & 1.0 [0.0–1.0] & 0.018 * \\
31 & 2.0 [1.0–2.0] & 1.0 [1.0–2.0] & 0.098 \\
44 & 2.0 [1.0–2.0] & 0.0 [0.0–1.0] & 0.003 * \\ Total & 1.5 [1.2–1.5] & 0.5 [0.2–0.8] & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05 for the Mann–Whitney test.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of the Tooth Wear Index between bruxists and non-bruxists. The lowest GCF volumes were measured for incisor teeth and the highest for molars in both groups. In patients showing signs of tooth wear, increased volumes of secreted GCF were observed for almost all pockets tested, and was particularly statistically significant for a buccal one in tooth 36. The greatest upward trend in GCF volume in bruxists was for premolars and molars. Patients with pathological tooth wear, compared to the group without tooth wear, showed increased median concentrations of proinflammatory interleukin-1\(\beta\) in all teeth examined. The greatest increasing tendency in the bruxists concerned the crevices of incisors and premolars. A particularly statistically significant difference was obtained for the sulcus on the palatal side of tooth 11. Additionally, ROC analyses were performed to assess the prediction of bruxism and thus periodontal microinflammatory on the basis of determined parameters. Figures 4 and 5 present the ROC curves for the five most predictive gingival sulci. Detailed results are shown for the GCF volume and interleukin-1\(\beta\) concentration in Tables 4 and 5. Figure 3: A comparison of interleukin-1\(\beta\) concentration in bruxists and non-bruxists—Median, Q1–Q3, Min–Max (B, buccal/labial; P, palatal/lingual). Figure 2: A comparison of gingival crevicular fluid volume in bruxists and non-bruxists—Median, Q1–Q3, Min–Max (B, buccal/labial; P, palatal/lingual). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Stimulant** & **AUC** & **SE** & _p-Value_ \\ \hline
16-B & 0.458 & 0.157 & 0.791 \\
16-P & 0.488 & 0.150 & 0.937 \\
11-B & 0.357 & 0.134 & 0.287 \\
11-P & 0.327 & 0.146 & 0.236 \\
24-B & 0.381 & 0.160 & 0.458 \\
24-P & 0.601 & 0.151 & 0.504 \\
36-B & 0.685 & 0.151 & 0.221 \\
36-P & 0.554 & 0.137 & 0.695 \\
31-B & 0.476 & 0.148 & 0.873 \\
31-P & 0.500 & 0.151 & \textgreater{}0.999 \\
44-B & 0.530 & 0.161 & 0.854 \\
44-P & 0.649 & 0.121 & 0.219 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Legend: B, buccal/labial; P, palatal/lingual.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of ROC analysis for gingival crevicular fluid volume.