Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¿¬¸¶±â±¸¿¡ µû¸¥ ½É¹Ì Ä¡¾Æ ¼öº¹Àç·áÀÇ Ç¥¸é °ÅÄ¥±â¿¡ °üÇÑ ºñ±³ ¿¬±¸

SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF ESTHETIC RESTORATIVE MATERIALS BY POLISHING SYSTEMS

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2003³â 30±Ç 3È£ p.520 ~ 529
¹ÚÀºÇý, ¾ç±ÔÈ£, ÃÖ³²±â,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹ÚÀºÇý (  ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇÐ
¾ç±ÔÈ£ (  ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇÐ
ÃÖ³²±â (  ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇÐ

Abstract

¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°ú ÀÓ»ó¿¡¼­ ÀÚÁÖ »ç¿ëÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â ½É¹Ì ¼öº¹Àç·á´Â ¸¶¹«¸®¿Í ¿¬¸¶ °úÁ¤À» ÅëÇØ ³»±¸¼º°ú ½É¹Ì¼ºÀÌ Çâ»óµÈ ¼öº¹¹°À» ¾òÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ¼öº¹Àç·á Á¾·ù¿¡ µû¸¥ ¿¬¸¶±â±¸ÀÇ ÀûÇÕ¼º°ú »ç¿ëµÈ ¿¬¸¶±â±¸ °£ÀÇ È¿À²¼ºÀ» ºñ±³ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
Z250(3M, USA), Heliomolar(Ivoclar Vivadent. USA), Dyract AP(Dentsply. USA), Fuji ¥± LC(GC. Japan)¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ½ÃÆíÀ» Á¦ÀÛÇÏ°í, ¿¬¸¶±â±¸ÀÎ Enhance(Dentsply. USA), Sof-Lex(3M. USA), CompoSite(Shofu. Japan)¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÏ¿© ¿¬¸¶ÇÏ¿´´Ù. °¢ Á¦Ç°¸¶´Ù Á¦ÀÛµÈ ½ÃÆí Áß¿¡ ¾î¶°ÇÑ ¿¬¸¶ °úÁ¤µµ °ÅÄ¡Áö ¾ÊÀº 5°³ÀÇ ½ÃÆíÀ» ´ëÁ¶±ºÀ¸·Î »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌ ½ÃÆíµéÀÇ Ç¥¸é °ÅÄ¥±â(RA value. §­)¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ°í, ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æÀ¸·Î °üÂûÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù.
1. ¼öº¹Àç·á¿¡ µû¸¥ Ç¥¸é °ÅÄ¥±â¸¦ ºñ±³ÇÑ °á°ú Z250ÀÌ °¡Àå ³·Àº Ç¥¸é °ÅÄ¥±â¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³ÂÀ¸³ª ´Ù¸¥ ¼öº¹Àç·á¿Í ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù(p>0.05).
2. ³× °¡Áö ¼öº¹Àç·á´Â ´ëÁ¶±º¿¡¼­ °¡Àå ÆòÈ°Âù Ç¥¸éÀ» ¾ò¾ú°í, ¸ðµç ¿¬¸¶ °úÁ¤Àº Ç¥¸é °ÅÄ¥±â¸¦ Áõ°¡½ÃÄ×´Ù.
3. ¼¼ °¡Áö ¿¬¸¶±â±¸ Áß Sof-Lex°¡ °¡Àå ÆòÈ°ÇÑ Ç¥¸éÀ» Çü¼ºÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, Sof-Lex¿Í Enhance¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ Ç¥¸é °ÅÄ¥±â´Â À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù(p<0.05).
4. ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æ °üÂû ½Ã ³× °¡Áö ¼öº¹Àç·áÀÇ ´ëÁ¶±ºÀº ½ÇÇ豺¿¡ ºñÇØ ±ÕÀÏÇÑ Ç¥¸éÀ» ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù.
Proper finishing and polishing of tooth restorations enhance the esthetics and the longevity of the restored tooth.
The aims of this study were to identify an appropriate polishing system for each esthetic restorative material(Z250, Heliomolar, Dyract AP, Fuji II LC), and to compare the efficiency of polishing systems(Enhance, Sof-Lex, CompoSite). The control group remains untouched.
The results were as follows:
1. There was no significant difference of surface roughness among the materials, while a roughness value of Z250 was the lowest of all.
2. The smoothest surface was produced by Mylar sheet on all materials. The polishing procedures, however. increased a roughness value.
3. The smoothest surfaces were produced by Sof-Lex, and there was significant difference of surface roughness between Sof-Lex and Enhance systems.
4. The smoother surfaces on the control group showed many scratches after the polishing procedures in the SEM findings.

Å°¿öµå

½É¹Ì ¼öº¹Àç·á;¿¬¸¶±â±¸;Ç¥¸é °ÅÄ¥±â;Esthetic restorative material;Polishing systems;Surface roughness

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI