ºÒȹ°ÀÇ Ã·°¡°¡ ¾Æ¿¬ÈÀ¯Áö³îÀÇ ¾ÐÃà°µµ, ÀÌÂ÷ ¿ì½Ä¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀúÇ×¼º, º¯¿¬´©Ãâ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ¿¡ °üÇÑ ½ÇÇèÀû ¿¬±¸
EFFECT OF ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO ZINC OXIDE EUGENOL ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, RESISTANCE TO SECONDARY CARIES AND MARGINAL LEAKAGE IN VITRO
Á¤È£¼®, À̱ԹÌ, ÇöÅ¿¬,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¤È£¼® ( ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌ±Ô¹Ì ( ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÇöÅ¿¬ ( ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
KMID : 0358919950220010252
Abstract
°á·Ð
¾Æ¿¬ÈÀ¯Áö³î¿¡ 10% ¹× 20% ºÒȳªÆ®·ý°ú ºÒȼ®À» ÷°¡ÇÏ¿© ºÒȹ°À» ÷°¡ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ¾Æ
¿¬ÈÀ¯Áö³î°úÀÇ ºñ±³¸¦ ÅëÇØ ºÒȹ°ÀÇ Ã·°¡°¡ ¾Æ¿¬ÈÀ¯Áö³îÀÇ ¾ÐÃà°µµ, ¿Íµ¿¹ý¶ûÁúÀÇ ÀÌÂ÷
¿ì½Ä¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀúÇ×¼º, ¿Íµ¿º¯¿¬Æó¼â¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ¿¡ ´ëÇØ Æò°¡ÇÑ ¹Ù ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò
¾ú´Ù.
1. 3ÀÏ °æ°úÈÄÀÇ ¾ÐÃà°µµÀÇ °æ¿ì Å« ¼ø¼ºÎÅÍ ÀÛÀº ¼ø¼±îÁö (1) 10% ºÒȼ®±º, (2) 20%
ºÒȳªÆ®·ý±º, (3) 20% ºÒȼ®±º, (4) 10% ºÒȳªÆ®·ý±º, (5) ºÒȹ°À» ÷°¡ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ¾Æ¿¬
ÈÀ¯Áö³î±ºÀÇ ¼øÀ¸·Î ³ô¾ÒÀ¸¸ç, p<0.01¼öÁØ¿¡¼ 1±º°ú 2±º, 3±º°ú 5±ºÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÑ ¸ðµç ±º¿¡¼
Åë°èÇÐÀû À¯ÀǼºÀ» ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. 3ÀÏ °æ°ú ÈÄ 1ÀÏ°£ ¹°¿¡ ´ã°¡ º¸°üÇÑ ÈÄÀÇ ¾ÐÃà°µµ´Â °¢ ±º
°£ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù.
2. ¿Íµ¿ ¹ý¶ûÁúÀÇ ÀÌÂ÷¿ì½Ä¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀúÇ×¼º ½ÇÇèÀÇ °æ¿ì 1-5±ºÀÇ ¾Æ¿¬ÈÀ¯Áö³îÀ» ¹ý¶ûÁú ½Ã
Æí¿¡ 7ÀÏ°£ ¹è¾çÇÏ°í ¼ö±â±¸·Î Á¦°ÅÇÑ ÈÄ 0.01 N À¯»ê(pH 5.0)À¸·Î 4½Ã°£ Żȸ ÈÄÀÇ °æµµ´Â
288.11-312.22 VHNÀ̾ú°í °¨¼ÒÄ¡´Â 13.11-37.67 VHNÀ̾úÀ¸¸ç °¨¼ÒÀ²Àº 3.94-11.02% À̾ú
´Ù. °¨¼ÒÀ²ÀÇ Å©±â´Â ÀÛÀº ¼ø¼ºÎÅÍ Å« ¼ø¼±îÁö (1) 10% ºÒȳªÆ®¸¨±º, (2) 20% ºÒȳªÆ®
¸¨±º, (3) 20% ºÒȼ®±º, (4) 10% ºÒȼ®±º (5) ºÒȹ°À» ÷°¡ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ±º ¼øÀ¸·Î ÄÇ´Ù. ºÒ
ȹ°À» ÷°¡ÇÑ ¾Æ¿¬ÈÀ¯Áö³î±ºÀÌ ºÒȹ°À» ÷°¡ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ±ºº¸´Ù ¼öÄ¡»óÀ¸·Î °¨¼ÒÀ²ÀÌ Àû¾ú
À¸³ª Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î´Â À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù.
3. ¿Íµ¿º¯¿¬Æó¼â½ÇÇèÀº »ö¼ÒħÅõÁ¤µµ¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÑ °á°ú ºÒȳªÆ®·ýÀ» ÷°¡ÇÑ ±ºÀÌ ºÒȼ®À»
÷°¡ÇÑ ±ºº¸´Ù »ö¼ÒħÅõ°¡ Àû°Ô ÀϾ´Ù(p<0.05).
4. 1ÁÖÀÏ°£ À¯¸®µÈ ºÒ¼ÒÀÌ¿ÂÀÇ ³óµµ´Â Å« ¼ø¼ºÎÅÍ ÀÛÀº ¼ø¼±îÁö (1) 20% ºÒȳªÆ®¸¨±º,
(2) 10% ºÒȳªÆ®·ý±º, (3) 20% ºÒȼ®±º, (4) 10% ºÒȼ®±º ¼øÀ¸·Î ³ô¾Ò´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of addition of fluoride to
conventional zinc oxide eugenol on compressive strength, resistance of enamel to
secondary caries and marginal leakage. Groups were divided by adding materials and
their content. Group 1 was control group that did not contain fluoride, Group 2 was 10%
sodium fluoride group, Group 3 was 20% sodium fluoride group, Group 4 was 10%
stannous fluoride group and Group 5 was 20% stannous fluoride group. Each of four
experimental groups was compared with control group.
The results were as follows :
1. In compressive strength after 3 days, 10% stannous fluoride group was highest and
then 20% sodium fluoride group, 10% stannous fluoride group, 10% sodium fluoride
group, and non-fluoride group were in order. Compressive strength after 1 day water
soaking after 3 days was stastically not significant(p>0.05).
2. In resistance of enamel to secondary caries, hardness reduction rate of experimental
groups was lower than control group. There was no significant difference among
groups(p>0.05).
3. Sodium fluoride group showed less marginal leakage than stannous fluoride
group(p<0.05).
4. The amount of fluoride release was largest in 20% sodium fluoride group, and then
10% sodium fluoride group, 20% stannous fluoride, 10% stannous fluoride group were in
order.
Å°¿öµå
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸