Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Er:YAG laser¿Í Conventional burÀÇ À¯Ä¡¿Í ¿µ±¸Ä¡ Ä¡¾Æ»èÁ¦È¿°ú ºñ±³

CUTTING EFFICACY OF Er:YAG LASER AND CONVENTIONAL BUR IN DECIDUOUS AND PERMANENT TEETH

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2003³â 30±Ç 2È£ p.272 ~ 285
¹ÚÀÎõ, ÀÌâ¼·, À̳­¿µ, ÀÌ»óÈ£,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹ÚÀÎõ (  ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç,
ÀÌâ¼· (  ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç,
À̳­¿µ (  ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç,
ÀÌ»óÈ£ (  ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç,

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸´Â À¯Ä¡¿Í ¿µ±¸Ä¡ÀÇ ¹ý¶ûÁú°ú »ó¾ÆÁúÀ» bur¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© »èÁ¦ÇÑ °æ¿ì¿Í Er:YAG laser¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© »èÁ¦ÇÑ °æ¿ì Çü¼ºµÇ´Â ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼ÇÐÀûÀÎ ÇüŸ¦ °üÂûÇÏ°í »èÁ¦ È¿°ú¸¦ ºñ±³Çϱâ À§ÇÔÀÌ´Ù. À¯Ä¡¿Í ¿µ±¸Ä¡ÀÇ ¹ý¶ûÁú°ú »ó¾ÆÁúÀ» #330 bur¿Í 5 HzÀÇ 150mJ, 200mJ, 250mJ ±×¸®°í 300mJ Á¶»ç¼¼±â·Î Er:YAG laser¸¦ Á¶»çÇÏ¿© 1mm µÎ²²ÀÇ Ç¥º»ÀÌ »èÁ¦µÇ´Â ½Ã°£À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ »èÁ¦µÈ Ç¥¸éÀ» °üÂûÇϱâ À§Çؼ­ À¯Ä¡¿Í ¿µ±¸Ä¡ °¢°¢ 5°³¿¡ #330 bur¿Í 5HzÀÇ 150mJ, 200mJ, 25mJ, 300mJ Á¶»ç¼¼±â·Î Er:YAG laser¸¦ 1Ãʵ¿¾È Á¶»çÇÏ¿© Ⱦ´Ü¸é°ú Á¾´Ü¸éÀ¸·Î ³ª´©¾î °üÂûÇÏ¿´´Ù.
1. Er:YAG ·¹ÀÌÀú¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© »èÁ¦ÇÑ °æ¿ì À¯Ä¡¿Í ¿µ±¸Ä¡, ¹ý¶ûÁú°ú »ó¾ÆÁú ¸ðµÎ bur¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© »èÁ¦ÇÑ °æ¿ìº¸´Ù »èÁ¦½Ã°£ÀÌ ±æ¾ú´Ù(P<0.05).
2. ¹ý¶ûÁúÀ» »èÁ¦ÇÒ °æ¿ì bur¸¦ »ç¿ë½Ã ¿µ±¸Ä¡º¸´Ù À¯Ä¡¿¡¼­ »èÁ¦½Ã°£ÀÌ ´õ ±æ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Er:YAG ·¹ÀÌÀú »ç¿ë½Ã¿¡´Â À¯Ä¡¿Í ¿µ±¸Ä¡ »çÀÌ¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(P>0.05).
3. »ó¾ÆÁúÀ» »èÁ¦ÇÒ °æ¿ì bur»ç¿ë½Ã ¿µ±¸Ä¡¿¡¼­ »èÁ¦½Ã°£ÀÌ ´õ ±æ¾úÀ¸¸ç Er:YAG·¹ÀÌÀú »ç¿ë½Ã 150mJ, 5Hz¿¡¼­´Â À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ¿µ±¸Ä¡¿¡¼­ ´õ ±ä »èÁ¦½Ã°£À» º¸¿´À¸³ª ³ª¸ÓÁö ´Ù¸¥ Ãâ·ÂÀÇ ·¹ÀÌÀú¿¡¼­´Â À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(P<0.05).
4. SEM °üÂû½Ã bur¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Ä¡¾Æ¸¦ »èÁ¦ÇÑ °æ¿ì Ä¡ÁúÀ¯Çü¿¡ °ü°è¾øÀÌ °æ°è°¡ ºñ±³Àû ¸íÈ®ÇÑ ¿Íµ¿ º¯¿¬À» º¸¿´´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¿Íµ¿ º¯¿¬¿¡¼­ ±Õ¿­°ú 10-100§­ÀÇ microchippingÀÌ °üÂûµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¿Íµ¿º®Àº ȸÀü½Ä bur¿¡ µû¸¥ ÁÙ¹«ÀÇ ¸ð¾çÀÇ Ç¥¸éÀ» º¸ÀÌ°í ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ÆíÆòÇÑ ¿Íµ¿Àú¸¦ °üÂûÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç ¿ª½Ã ¿Íµ¿º®°ú ¸¶Âù°¡Áö·Î °ÅÄ£ Ç¥¸éÀ» º¸ÀÌ°í ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.
5. ·¹ÀÌÀú¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Ä¡¾Æ¸¦ »èÁ¦ÇÑ °æ¿ì ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ º¯¿¬ÀÌ ¸íÈ®ÇÏ°í ³¯Ä«·Ó°Ô Çü¼ºµÇ¾ú´Ù. ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ »óºÎÀÇ Á÷°æÀº Á¶»ç¿¡³ÊÁö¿Í pulse repetition rate°¡ Ä¿Áú¼ö·Ï Á¡Â÷ Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿Íµ¿º®Àº ºÒ±ÔÄ¢ÇÏ°Ô ¹è¿­µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ º¯¿¬À̳ª ¹Ù´Ú¿¡ ºñÇØ ºÒ±ÔÄ¢ÇÑ ¾ç»óÀ» º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù. ¿Íµ¿Àú´Â ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î µÕ±Ù ¿øÃßÇüÀÌ¸ç ºñ±³Àû ºÎµå·¯¿î Ç¥¸éÀ» º¸¿´´Ù.
ÀÌ»óÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ ¿ä¾àÇغ¸¸é Er:YAG·¹ÀÌÀú´Â À¯Ä¡¿Í ¿µ±¸Ä¡¿¡¼­ ºñ½ÁÇÑ »èÁ¦ ½Ã°£ÀÌ ¼Ò¿äµÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¹ý¶ûÁúº¸´Ù´Â »ó¾ÆÁú¿¡ ´õ È¿°úÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ½ÇÇè °á°ú ·¹ÀÌÀú¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Ä¡¾Æ¸¦ »èÁ¦ÇÑ °æ¿ì bur»ç¿ë¿¡ ºñÇØ 3¹è ÀÌ»óÀÇ »èÁ¦ ½Ã°£ÀÌ ¼Ò¿äµÇ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª, ·¹ÀÌÀú¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Ä¡¾Æ¸¦ »èÁ¦ÇÒ °æ¿ì ±ú²ýÇÑ ¿Íµ¿ º¯¿¬ÀÌ Çü¼ºµÇ°í smear layer°¡ Çü¼ºµÇÁö ¾Ê´Â Á¡ÀÌ ÀåÁ¡À¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.

This study was conducted to observe the microscopic structures of cavities formed after ablation of primary teeth, petutranent teeth, enamel and dentin in using a bur and cavities formed after ablation using laser and the following results were obtained after comparing the effects of ablation.
Using a #330 bur and Er:YAG laser irradiated at 150 mJ, 200 mJ, 250 mJ and 300 mJ all at the frequency of 5 Hz, 1 mm enamel and dentin samples were ablated and the ablation time was measured. In order to measure the surfaces ablated, 5 each of primary teeth and permanent teeth were ablated using a #330 bur and Er:YAG laser at 150 mJ, 200 mJ, 250 mJ and 300 mJ for 1 sec and the cross section and vertical section were observed.
The following results were obtained :
1. Cutting time of Er:YAG laser was longer than that of conventinal high-speed bur regardless of teeth type.
2. Cutting on enamel, Cutting time of conventional high-speed bur in deciduous teeth was longer than in per-
manent teeth(P<0.05). But Er:YAG laser was not showed any difference between the deciduous and per-
manent teeth(P)0.05).
3. Cutting on dentin, Cutting time of conventional high-speed bur in permanent teeth was longer than deciduous teeth. Er:YAG laser of 150 mJ, 5 Hz in permanent teeth was longer than in deciduous teeth(pKO.05). But laser of other power did not showed mean difference.
4. The cavity surface treated with the convetional high-speed bur revealed a relatively flat appearance, almost
covered with a debris-like smear layer. Cavity wall showed striped appearance because of blade of bur.
5. The cavity surface treated by the Er:YAG laser system was irregular or rough surface with the absence
charring, carbonization, or cracking of the dentin. In addition, there was an absence of a smear layer.
Cavity floor was round and relatively smooth.
According to these results, cutting time of Er:YAG laser was almostly same in permanent and deciduous teeth, but more effective in dentin than enamel. Cutting the sample, Er:YAG laser was needed more time than conventional bur. But SEM findings suggested that laser device produced favorable surface characteristic(i.e, no smear layer, irregular surface, cracking).

Å°¿öµå

Er:YAG laser;»èÁ¦È¿°ú;Er:YAG laser;Cutting efficacy

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI