Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

À¯±¸Ä¡ Á¦2±Þ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ Glass Cermet Cement¼öº¹¹°ÀÌ ÀÎÁ¢Ä¡¸éÀÇ ³»¿ì½Ä¼º¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

THE ANTICARIOGENIC EFFECT OF CLASS ¥± GLASS CERMET CEMENT RESTORATIONS OF PRIMARY MOLARS ON THE ADJACENT TOOTH SURFACES

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 1993³â 20±Ç 1È£ p.192 ~ 203
±è¿µ½Å, ÃÖÁßÈ£,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±è¿µ½Å (  ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¹Ì»ý¹°Çб³½Ç
ÃÖÁßÈ£ (  ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇÐ

Abstract

°á·Ð
ºÒ¼Ò¸¦ À¯¸®ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ¾Ë·ÁÁø glass ionomer cementÀÇ ¿ì½ÄÀúÁö È¿°ú¸¦ ¿¬±¸ÇÒ ¸ñÀûÀ¸
·Î, glass cermet cement¿Í ¾Æ¸»°¨ÀÌ ¿ø½É¸é¿¡ °¢°¢ ÃæÀüµÈ À¯±¸Ä¡¿Í ±× ÀÎÁ¢¿µ±¸Ä¡¿¡ Àΰø
¿ì½ÄÀÇ À¯¹ßÀ» ÅëÇÑ ½ÇÇèÀ» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ°í, ÀÎÁ¢¿µ±¸Ä¡¸é¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¶Á÷ÇÐÀûÀÎ °üÂûÀ» ½ÃµµÇÏ¿© ´Ù
À½°ú °°Àº °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. ÃæÀüÈÄ ¿ì½ÄÀ¯¹ß½ÇÇè¿¡¼­ glass cermet cementÃæÀü±ºÀÇ ÀÎÁ¢¿µ±¸Ä¡ÀÇ ±Ù½É¸é¿¡¼­ÀÇ ¿ì
½Äº´¼ÒÀÇ ±íÀÌ´Â 54.17¡¾12.56¥ìm·Î¼­, ¾Æ¸»°¨ ÃæÀü±º(91.67¡¾19.51¥ìm)¿¡ ºñÇÏ¿© ¾è°Ô³ªÅ¸
³µ´Ù(P<0.01).
2. ¿ì½ÄÀ¯¹ßÈÄ ÃæÀü½ÇÇè¿¡¼­ glass cermet cementÃæÀü±ºÀÇ ÀÎÁ¢¿µ±¸Ä¡ÀÇ ±Ù½É¸é ¿ì½Äº´¼Ò
ÀÇ ±íÀÌ´Â 67.50¡¾18.77¥ìm·Î¼­, ¾Æ¸»°¨ ÃæÀü±º(120.00¡¾21.21¥ìm)¿¡ ºñÇÏ¿© ¾è°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù
(P<0.01).
#ÃÊ·Ï#
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the anticariogenic effect of glass ionomer
cement which is known to release fluoride. Artificial carious was produced on the
restored primary tooth and its adjacent permanent tooth before and after class ¥± glass
cermet cement restoration on distal surfaces of primary molars. Amalgam restorations
were used as control group. The specimens were processed for histologic investigation
and observed under polarized light microscope. And the lesion depths were measured on
the photos taken.
The results were as follows ;
1. In experiment of artificial carious lesion-induction after restoration, the lesion depth
of the adjacent tooth surface to glass cermet cement restoration group was 54.17¡¾12.56
¥ìm, which was less than of amalgam restoration group(91.67¡¾19.51¥ìm) (P<0.01).
2. In experiment of restoration after artificial carious induction, the depth of carious
lesion of the adjacent tooth surface to glass cermet cement restoration group was 67.50
¡¾18.77¥ìm, which was less than that of amalgam restoration group(120.00¡¾21.21¥ìm)
(P<0.01).

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI