Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

V±Þ¿Íµ¿¿¡ ÃæÀüÇÑ ½É¹Ì¼º ¼öº¹ÀçÀÇ Ä¡Áú°úÀÇ Á¢ÇÕµµ¿¡ °üÇÑ ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æÀû ¿¬±¸

A SEM Study on The Adaptation of Esthetic Restorative Materials to Tooth Structure in Class V Cavities

±¸°­»ý¹°Çבּ¸ 1993³â 17±Ç 1È£ p.233 ~ 234
°íâÇö, Á¶¿µ°ï,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
°íâÇö ( Goh Chang-Hyun ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ º¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
Á¶¿µ°ï ( Cho Young-Gon ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adaptation of light cured glass ionomer cement and composite resin using all-etch technique to tooth structure.
In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 10 extracted human premolar teeth with cementum margin and teeth were randomly assigned 2 groups of 5 teeth each. The cavities of glass ionomer cement group were filled with
the
light cured glass ionomer cement(Fuji II LC) and the cavities of composite resin group were filled with the light cured composite resin (P-50) using all-etch technique with All-Bond 2.
The restored teeth were stored in 100% relative humidity at 37¡Éfor 48 hours.
And then, the roots of the teeth were removed with the tapered fissure bur and the remaining crowns were sectioned occlusogingivally through the center of restorations.
Adaptation at tooth-restoration interface was assesed occlusally, gingivally, and axially by scanning electron microscope
@ES The results were as follows:
@EN 1. The adaptation to enamel walls of composite resin restorations using All-Bond 2 showed better than glass ionomer restorations.
2. The adaptation to gingival and axial walls of glass ionomer restorations showed better than composite resin restoration using All-Bond 2.
3. In both groups, occlusal margins of restorations showed better adaptation than gingival margins of restorations.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI