Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

»êºÎ½ÄÀü ¼öÁ¾ÀÇ ¹ý¶ûÁú Ç¥¸é 󸮰úÁ¤ÀÌ ·¹Áø °áÇշ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â È¿°ú(Àü´Ü°­µµ ºÐ¼® ¹× ÁÖ»ç ÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æ ¿¬±¸)

THE EFFECT OF SEVERAL SURFACE TREATMENTS PRIOR TO ETCHING ON RESIN-TO-ENAMEL BONDS(BOND STRENGTH ANALYSIS AND SEM STUDY)

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 1995³â 22±Ç 1È£ p.306 ~ 320
À±¿©»ó, ÃÖ¿ëö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À±¿©»ó (  ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÀç·áÇб³½Ç
ÃÖ¿ëö (  ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

°á·Ð
º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº Åë»óÀÇ º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø ¼öº¹¼úÀÇ ÇÑ °úÁ¤ÀÎ »êºÎ½ÄÀüÀÇ ¹ý¶ûÁú Ç¥¸éó¸® ¹æ¹ý
ÀÌ ·¹Áø Á¢Âø·Â°ú ¹ý¶ûÁú Ç¥¸éÀÇ ÇüÅÂÇÐÀû º¯È­¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Á¶»çÇϱâ À§ÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î¼­,
Ç¥¸éó¸®Á¦·Î´Â ºÒ¼Ò°¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÇÁö ¾ÊÀº pumice¿Í 3% hydrogen peroxide¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, °¢
°¢ÀÇ Ã³¸®µÈ Ç¥º»À» Universal testing machine°ú ÁÖ»ç ÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ·¹Áø ¼öº¹¹°
ÀÇ Àü´Ü°­µµÃøÁ¤°ú Ç¥¸é°üÂûÀ» °¢°¢ ½ÃÇàÇÑ °á°ú ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. Àü´Ü°­µµ ÃøÁ¤ °á°ú, Pumice·Î ó¸®ÇÑ 2±ºÀÌ °¡Àå ³ôÀº °­µµ¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç ±× ´ÙÀ½ 1, 3,
4±ºÀÇ ¼ø¼­·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. 2±º°ú ´Ù¸¥ ¸ðµç ±º°£¿¡¼­ Åë°èÇÐÀû À¯ÀÇÂ÷¸¦ º¸¿´°í(p<.05) ³ª¸Ó
Áö ±º°£¿¡¼­´Â À¯ÀÇÂ÷¸¦ ¹ß°ßÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø¾ú´Ù(p>.05).
2. Àü´Ü°­µµ ÃøÁ¤ÈÄ °üÂûµÈ ÆÄÀý¾ç»óÀº °¢ ±º °øÈ÷ Adhesive typeÀÌ ÁÖÁ¾À» ÀÌ·ç´Â °¡¿îµ¥
1, 3, 4±ºÀº ¼­·Î°£¿¡ À¯»çÇÑ ºÐÆ÷¸¦ º¸¿´°í 2±º¿¡¼­´Â Ÿ±ºµé¿¡ ºñÇØ Cohesive typeÀÇ ºóµµ
°¡ ´Ù¼Ò Å©°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
3. °¢ ±ºÀÇ »êºÎ½ÄÀü ÁÖ»ç ÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æ °üÂû °á°ú 2±º(pumice prophylaxis)Àº Á¤»ó ¹ý¶ûÁú
¼Ò°ß°ú À¯»çÇÑ Ç¥¸éÀ» º¸ÀÎ ¹Ý¸é, 3±º (hydrogen peroxide)Àº ´ëºÎºÐÀÇ À¯±â¹°ÁúÀÌ ÀÜÁ¸µÈ
Ç¥¸éÀ» º¸¿´°í, 4±º(hydrogen peroxide+pumice)Àº ´ëºÎºÐÀÇ À¯±â¹°ÁúÀÌ Á¦°ÅµÇ¾úÀ¸³ª
hydrogen peroxideÀÇ ¹ÝÀÀ»ê¹°·Î ÃßÁ¤µÇ´Â ħÂø¹°µéÀÌ »êÀçµÅ ÀÖ´Â ¾ç»óÀ» ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù.
4. °¢ ±ºÀÇ »êºÎ½ÄÈÄ ÁÖ»ç ÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æ °üÂû°á°ú 2±ºÀº Á¤»óÀûÀÎ »ê ºÎ½Ä ¼Ò°ß°ú À¯»çÇÑ Ç¥
¸éÀ» º¸ÀÎ ¹Ý¸é, 3±ºÀº ¹¶°³Á® ³ª°£ µíÇÑ ¹«Á¤ÇüÀÇ ºÎ½Ä¾ç»óÀ» º¸¿´°í, 4±ºÀº ȸ»Ñ¿¸°Ô ¼º¾Ö
°¡ ³¤ µíÇÑ white frosty appearance¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various enamel surface
treatment methods prior to etching on the resin-to-enamel bond strength and surface
morphology. The measurement of shear bond strength was done using Universal
Testing Machine and the surface structure was observed through Scanning Electron
Microscope with the following results :
1. Group with pumice prophylaxis demonstrated the highest mean value among the
tested groups and Group I, III and IV in declined order respectively.
2. The fracture patterns observed mainly was an adhesive type with similar distribution
in all groups with the characteristic higher frequency of cohesive type in Group II.
3. Pumice treated enamel surface showed quite similar surface structure to normal
enamel surface whereas Group III demonstrated general precipitation of organic materials
and Group IV revealed the sparse precipitation of the material which is assumed to be
the reaction products of hydrogen peroxide.
4. After acid etching, Group II showed a similar pattern of typical acid etching of
normal enamel, while Group III showed the general amorphous appearance and Group IV
with the white frosty appearance.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI