Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

½Ã¼úÀÚ¿Í ¹æ½À¹ý¿¡ µû¸¥ Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦ÀÇ À¯Áö¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

EVALUATION OF PIT AND FISSURE SEALANTS RETENTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT OPERATORS USING DIFFERENT ISOLATION TECHNIQUES

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2003³â 30±Ç 3È£ p.415 ~ 422
Á¶Àç¿ë, ½É±Ý¹é, À̽¿ì, ±è±¤³², Á¶º´ÈÆ, ÀÌ»óŹ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¶Àç¿ë (  ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
½É±Ý¹é (  ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
À̽¿ì (  ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
±è±¤³² (  ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
Á¶º´ÈÆ (  ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌ»óŹ (  ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦ÀÇ ¿¹¹æÈ¿°ú´Â Àü»öÁ¦ÀÇ À¯Áö¿Í ¸Å¿ì ¹ÐÁ¢ÇÑ »ó°ü°ü°è°¡ ÀÖÀ¸¸ç ½Ã¼ú½ÃÀÇ È¯°æ°ú ½Ã¼ú ¹æ¹ý, °³°³ ȯÀÚÀÇ ±¸°­À§»ýÀÌ À¯Áö¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ¾Ë·ÁÁ® ÀÖ´Ù. ÇöÀç ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó¿¡¼­´Â ´ë±Ô¸ð·Î ¢¥Ä¡¾ÆȨ¸Þ¿ì±â »ç¾÷¢¥ÀÌ ÁøÇà Áß¿¡ ÀÖÁö¸¸ ½Ã¼ú ¿©°ÇÀ̳ª ½Ã¼úÀÚ¿¡ µû¶ó ¿©·¯ °¡Áö ¹æ¹ýÀÇ ¹æ½À¹ý°ú Ä¡¸é ¼¼¸¶°¡ ÇàÇØÁö°í ÀÖ´Â ½ÇÁ¤ÀÌ´Ù.
º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦ÀÇ ½Ã¼ú ½Ã ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÀÇ»ç, ÀϹÝÄ¡°úÀÇ»ç, Ä¡°úÀ§»ý»çµî ½Ã¼úÀÚ¿¡ µû¸¥ À¯ÁöÀ² Â÷ÀÌ¿Í ·¯¹ö´ï°ú ÄÚÆ°·Ñ(cotton roll) ¹æ½À¹ý µî °Ý¸® ¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¸¥ À¯ÁöÀ²ÀÇ Â÷À̸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸°í ½ÇÆа¡ ÀϾ´Â Ä¡¾ÆÀÇ Æ¯Á¤ ºÎÀ§¸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸±â À§ÇÑ °ÍÀÌ´Ù 6¼¼-11¼¼ÀÎ 119¸íÀÇ ¾Æµ¿(³²ÀÚ64¸í, ¿©ÀÚ 55¸í)¿¡¼­ »óÇÏ¾Ç Á¦1´ë±¸Ä¡¿¡ ½Ã¼úµÈ 279°³ÀÇ Ä¡Æí¿­±¸ Àü»öÁ¦¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î 1³â ÈÄÀÇ À¯ÁöÀ²À» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌ ¾Æµ¿µéÀº Æò±Õ ¿¬·ÉÀÌ 8.59¡¾0.772¼¼¿´À¸¸ç °¢°¢ ·¯¹ö´ïÀ» »ç¿ëÇÑ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÀǻ簡 ½Ã¼úÇÑ 1±º, ·¯¹ö´ïÀ» »ç¿ëÇÑ ÀϹÝÄ¡°úÀǻ簡 ½Ã¼úÇÑ 2±º, ÄÚÆ°·Ñ(cotton roll)À» »ç¿ëÇÑ Ä¡°úÀ§»ý»ç°¡ ½Ã¼úÇÑ 3±ºÀ¸·Î ³ª´©¾ú´Ù.
1³â ÈÄÀÇ Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦ÀÇ À¯ÁöÀ²À» Á¶»çÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. 1³â ÈÄÀÇ Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦ À¯ÁöÀ²Àº ·¯¹ö´ïÀ» »ç¿ëÇÑ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÀǻ簡 ½Ã¼úÇÑ 1±ºÀÌ 90.8%, ·¯¹ö´ïÀ» »ç¿ëÇÑ ÀϹÝÄ¡°úÀǻ簡 ½Ã¼úÇÑ 2±ºÀº 85.0%, ÄÚÆ°·ÑÀ» »ç¿ëÇÑ Ä¡°úÀ§»ý»ç°¡ ½Ã¼úÇÑ 3±ºÀº 64.7%¿´À¸¸ç 1±º°ú 2±º°£¿¡´Â Åë°èÀûÀÎ À¯ÀÇÂ÷°¡ ¾ø¾úÀ¸³ª(P>0.05) 1,2±º°ú 3±º °£¿¡´Â Åë°èÀûÀÎ À¯ÀÇÂ÷°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù(P<0.05).
2. »ó¾Ç°ú ÇϾÇÀÇ À¯ÁöÀ² ºñ±³¿¡¼­ 1±º°ú 2±ºÀº Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾úÀ¸³ª(P>0.05) 3±ºÀº Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù(P<0.05).
3. ½ÇÆкÎÀ§ ºÐ¼®¿¡¼­ ±³ÇÕ¸éÀÇ ½ÇÆд 58.3%, Çù/¼³¸é±¸´Â 41,7%¸¦ Â÷ÁöÇÏ¿´´Ù.
Cam__-:lv. ¢¥National program of dental sealant¢¥ has begun in Korea, but various isolation techniques and prep_:on is performing. The aim of the present study was to compare pit and fissure sealant retention rates bets see different operators using two different isolation techniques. Additionally, the failed surface was examined . he examiner performed the examination after one year of the initial operation.
The _cpulation consisted of 119 children(mean age 8.59¡¾0.772), of which the total sealed number was 279 perrria nt first molars. Pediatric dentists sealed 131 molars using the rubber dam isolation technique (Group 1), gelral practitioners sealed 80 molars using the rubber dam isolation technique (Group 2), and dental hygienis sealed 69 molars using the cotton roll isolation (Group 3).
The results were as follows
1 ``-e complete retention rate between Group 1 (90.8%) and 2 (85.0%) showed no significant statistical dif-:_:_nce (P)0.05). However, there were significant statistical different retention rates between Group 1 and _;p 3(64.7%) and between Group 2 and Group 3 (p{0.05).
2. _ ,.emparing retention rates between maxilla and mandible, Only Group 3 showed a significantly lower _:_-ete retention rate in mandible than maxilla (W.05).
3. -2- __.`red surface analysis, occlusal failed surface was 58.3%, buccal/palatal failed surface was 41.7%.

Å°¿öµå

Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦;¹æ½À¹ý;½Ã¼úÀÚ;À¯ÁöÀ²;·¯¹ö´ï;ÄÚÆ°·Ñ;Pit and fissure sealant;Isolation technique;Operators;Retention rate;Rubber dam;Cotton roli

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI