Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Er:YAG ·¹ÀÌÀú·Î »èÁ¦µÈ »ó¾ÆÁú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÄÄÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹ÁøÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

Micro-tensile Bond Strength of Composite Resin Bonded to Er:YAG Laser-prepared Dentin

´ëÇѱ¸°­³»°úÇÐȸÁö 2006³â 31±Ç 3È£ p.211 ~ 221
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹Î¼÷Áø/Min SJ ¾È¿ë¿ì/°í¸í¿¬/¹ÚÁØ»ó/Ahn YW/Ko MY/Park JS

Abstract

¸ñÀû
ÀüÅëÀû °í¼Ó ȸÀü½Ä Àý»è±â±¸ ¶Ç´Â Er:YAG ·¹ÀÌÀú·Î »èÁ¦µÈ »ó¾ÆÁú¿¡, µÎ°¡Áö ´Ù¸¥ Á¢Âø ½Ã½ºÅÛÀ» Àû¿ëÇÑ ÈÄ, ÃàÁ¶ÇÑ ÄÄÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹ÁøÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ ºñ±³ÇÏ°í, ´Ù¾çÇÑ Er:YAG ·¹ÀÌÀú ¿¡³ÊÁö°¡ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Æò°¡ÇÑ´Ù.

Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý
40°³ÀÇ Á¦3´ë±¸Ä¡¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿©, ÆòÆòÇÑ »ó¾ÆÁú¸éÀ» ¸¸µç ÈÄ 8°³ÀÇ ±ºÀ¸·Î ³ª´©¾î, 4°¡Áö Àý»è¹æ¹ý (°í¼Ó ȸÀü½Ä Àý»è±â±¸, 2 W, 3 W, 4 W Ãâ·ÂÀÇ Er:YAG ·¹ÀÌÀú) Áß ÇÑ °¡Áö·Î »èÁ¦ÇÏ°í, 2°¡Áö Á¢Âø ½Ã½ºÅÛ (Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus, Clearfil SE bond) Áß ÇÑ °¡Áö·Î ó¸®ÇÏ¿© ÄÄÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹ÁøÀ» ÃàÁ¶ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 24½Ã°£ÀÇ ÀúÀå ÈÄ, °¢ ½ÃÆíÀ» °áÇո鿡 ¼öÁ÷À¸·Î ÀÚ¸£°í, ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. °¢ ±ºÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ´Â Æò±Õ¡¾Ç¥ÁØ ÆíÂ÷·Î Ç¥ÇöÇÏ¿´°í, Åë°èºÐ¼®À» À§ÇØ two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, student-Newman-Keuls¡¯ multiple comparison test, ±×¸®°í t-test°¡ »ç¿ëµÇ¾ú´Ù.

°á°ú ¹× °á·Ð
1. Á¢Âø½Ã½ºÅÛ°ú °ü°è¾øÀÌ, Àý»è¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¸¥ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµÀÇ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú°í, ³ôÀº ¼ø¼­´ë·Î ³ª¿­ÇÏ¸é ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù: 3 W, 2 W, Bur, 4 W (p<0.001).
2. Àý»è¹æ¹ý°ú °ü°è¾øÀÌ, Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus·Î ó¸®ÇÑ ±ºÀÌ Clearfil SE bond·Î ó¸®ÇÑ ±ºº¸´Ù À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ³ôÀº ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù (p<0.001).
3. Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus·Î ó¸®ÇÑ ±º Áß¿¡¼­, 3 W ·¹ÀÌÀú Àý»è±ºÀÌ °¡Àå ³ôÀº ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â°í, ´ÙÀ½ÀÌ Bur, 2 W, 4 W Àý»è±º ¼øÀ̾ú´Ù (p<0.001).
4. Clearfil SE bond·Î ó¸®ÇÑ ±º Áß¿¡¼­ 3 W ·¹ÀÌÀú Àý»è±ºÀÌ °¡Àå ³ôÀº ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â°í, ´ÙÀ½ÀÌ 2 W, 4 W, Bur Àý»è±º ¼øÀ̾ú´Ù (p<0.001).
5. µÎ °¡Áö Á¢Âø ½Ã½ºÅÛ ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­, ·¹ÀÌÀú·Î Àý»èÇÑ ±ºÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú°í, ³ôÀº ¼ø¼­´ë·Î ³ª¿­Çϸé 3 W, 2 W, 4 W ¼øÀ̾ú´Ù (p<0.001).
:»ó¾ÆÁú¿¡ Á¢ÂøµÈ ÄÄÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹ÁøÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ´Â Àý»è¹æ¹ý°ú Á¢Âø½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ »óÈ£ÀÛ¿ë¿¡ ÀÇÇØ À¯ÀÇÇÑ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ¾Ò´Ù.
ÀÓ»ó¿¡¼­ ·¹Áø ¼öº¹½Ã, 2 W - 3 W ¹üÀ§³»·Î Er:YAG laser¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÑ´Ù¸é ÀüÅëÀû ÇÚµåÇǽº ¸øÁö¾Ê°Ô ¼öº¹¹°ÀÇ ¿ì¼öÇÑ °áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ ¾òÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ƯÈ÷ ½Ã¼ú½Ã°£ÀÇ ´ÜÃà, °úµµÇÑ »êºÎ½Ä¿¡ µû¸¥ ºÎÀÛ¿ëÀÇ ¿¹¹æÀ» À§ÇØ Clearfil SE bond¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÑ self etching systemÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÑ´Ù¸é burº¸´Ù Er:YAG laser¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ »èÁ¦¹æ¹ýÀÌ ´õ À¯¿ëÇÑ °áÇÕ·ÂÀ» Á¦°øÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

Purpose
The aims of this study were to evaluate micro-tensile bond strength of composite resin bonded to dentin following high-speed rotary handpiece preparation or Er:YAG laser preparation with two different adhesive systems and to assess the influence of different Er:YAG laser energies on the micro-tensile bond strength.

Materials and Methods
In this study, 40 third morlars were used. Flat dentin specimans were obtained and randomly assigned to eight groups. Dentin surfaces were prepared with one of four cutting types: carbide bur, Er:YAG laser (2 W, 3 W and 4 W) and conditioned with two bonding systems, Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus (SM), Clearfil SE bond (SE) and composite resin-build ups were created. After storage for 24 hours, each specimen was serially sectioned perpendicular to the bonded surface to produce more than thirty slabs in each group. Micro-tensile bond strength test was performed at a crosshead speed of 1.0 §®/min. Micro-tensile bond strengths (¥ìTBS) were expressed as means¡¾SD. Data were submitted to statistical analysis using two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls¡¯ multiple comparison test and t-test.

Results and Conclusion
1. Regardless of bonding systems, the ¥ìTBS according to cutting types were from highest to lowest : 3 W, 2 W, Bur, and 4 W. In addition, there was no significant difference between Bur and 4 W (p£¼0.001).
2. Regardless of cutting types, SM showed significantly higher ¥ìTBS than SE (p£¼0.001).
3. Bonding to dentin conditioned with SM resulted in higher ¥ìTBS for 3 W compared to Bur, 2 W, and 4 W. There was no significant difference between 2 W and Bur (p£¼0.001).
4. Bonding to dentin conditioned with SE resulted in higher ¥ìTBS for 3 W compared to 2 W, 4 W, and Bur. Bur exhibited significant lower ¥ìTBS than all other cutting types. There were no significant differences between 3 W, 2 W and between 4 W and Bur (p£¼0.001).
5. The ¥ìTBS of laser cutting groups were shown in order from highest to lowest: 3 W, 2 W and 4 W in two bonding systems. There was no significant difference between 2 W and 3 W in SE (p£¼0.001).
: The ¥ìTBS of composite resin bonded dentin was significantly affected by interaction between the cutting type and bonding system.
In the range of 2 W - 3 W, cavity preparation of the Er:YAG laser seems to supply good adhesion of composite resin restoration no less than bur preparation. In particular, if you want to use the self-etching system, including Clearfil SE bond for the purpose of a simplification of the bonding procedures and prevention of adverse effects by excessive etching, an Er:YAG laser may offer better adhesion than a bur.

Å°¿öµå

Laser;Composite Resin; Bond Strength;·¹ÀÌÀú;º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø;°áÇÕ·Â

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI