Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦ÀÇ ±¤ÁßÇÕ ÈÄ Ç¥¸é ó¸® ¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¸¥ ¹Ì¹ÝÀÀ ¸ð³ë¸Ó ¿ë¸® ºñ±³

COMPARISON OF MONOMER RELEASE FROM PIT AND FISSURE SEALANT FOLLOWING VARIOUS SURFACE TREATMENT

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2006³â 33±Ç 1È£ p.70 ~ 76
ÀÌ»ó¿ì, ¹ÚÈ£¿ø, ÀÌÁÖÇö, ¼­Çö¿ì,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌ»ó¿ì ( Lee Sang-Woo ) - °­¸ª´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
¹ÚÈ£¿ø ( Park Ho-Won ) - °­¸ª´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌÁÖÇö ( Lee Ju-Hyun ) - °­¸ª´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
¼­Çö¿ì ( Seo Hyun-Woo ) - °­¸ª´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦ ÁßÇÕ ÈÄ Ç¥¸éÀÇ ¹Ì¹ÝÀÀ ¸ð³ë¸Ó ÃþÀ» ÀÓ»ó¿¡¼­ ÀÌ¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î Á¦°ÅÇÏ°í, °í¼º´É ¾×ü Å©·Î¸¶Åä±×·¡ÇǸ¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ¹Ì¹ÝÀÀ ¸ð³ë¸Ó¸¦ Á¤·®ºÐ¼® ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ¹Ì¹ÝÀÀ ¸ð³ë¸ÓÀÇ Á¦°ÅÈ¿°ú¸¦ ºñ±³ Æò°¡ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

Ç¥¸éó¸® ¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¶ó ±¤ÁßÇÕ ÈÄ Ç¥¸éÀ» ¾î¶² 󸮵µ ½ÃÇàÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ±ºÀ» ´ëÁ¶±º, Áõ·ù¼ö·Î 10ÃÊ°£ ¼¼Ã´ÇÑ ±ºÀ» ¥°±º(Group¥°),76% ¾ËÄڿÿ¡ Á¥Àº ¸é±¸·Î 10ÃÊ°£ ¹®Áö¸¥ ±ºÀ» ¥±±º(Group¥±), Æ۹̽º¿Í ·¯¹öÄÅÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© 10ÃÊ°£ ó¸®ÇÏ°í Áõ·ù¼ö·Î °¡º±°Ô ¼¼Ã´ÇÑ ±ºÀ» ¥²±º(Group¥²)À¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÏ¿´´Ù. Ç¥¸éó¸® ÈÄ °¢°¢ÀÇ ½ÃÆíÀ» 3Â÷ Áõ·ù¼ö¿¡ ³ÖÀº ÈÄ 37¡É Ç׿¼öÁ¶¿¡¼­ 10ºÐ°£ º¸°üÇÑ ÈÄ °¢°¢ÀÇ ¿ë¸®¾×À» HPLC¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Á¤¼º ¹× Á¤·®ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù.

1.Ç¥¸é󸮸¦ ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ±º°ú Ç¥¸é󸮸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÑ ¸ðµç ±º¿¡¼­ TEGDMA¸¦ Á¦¿ÜÇÑ ¾î¶°ÇÑ ¸ð³ë¸Óµéµµ °ËÃâµÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

2. Ç¥¸é󸮸¦ ÇÑ ¸ðµç ±ºÀ» Ç¥¸é󸮸¦ ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº ±º¿¡ ºñÇÏ¿©, ¿ë¸®µÇ´Â ¸ð³ë¸Ó·®ÀÌ À¯ÀÇÇÒ ¸¸ÇÏ°Ô °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´´Ù(P<0.05).

3. Æ۹̽º¿Í ·¯¹öÄÅÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇØ Ç¥¸éó¸®ÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­ ÀÜÁ¸ ¸ð³ë¸Ó Á¦°ÅÈ¿°ú°¡ ´Ù¸¥ ±º¿¡ ºñÇØ À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ°Ô ³ô¾Ò´Ù(P<0.05).

The aim of this study comparison of effectiveness of surface treatment methods in reducing the oxygen-in-hibited layer of a commercially available freshly polymerized, light cured dental sealant(concise¢â,3M,St Paul,USA). Surface treatment groups were consisted of no treatment(negative control group) and 3 experimental groups according to surface treatment of light-cured sealant. Experimental group ¥° was 10 seconds¡¯ exposure to distilled water syringe, group¥±was 10 seconds¡¯ prophylaxis with pumice/water slurry using rubber cup on a slow-speed hand-piece. All specimens were immersed in 5 ml distilled water and stored at 37c water bath for 10 minutes. All eluates were analyzed by HLPC for identification and quantitive analysis of monomers.

The results of this study can be summarized as follows.

1. None of the chromatograms of the tested sealant displayed peaks with the same retention time as that of the standard solution. except for TEGDMA.

2. All surface treatment group had a statistically significant decrease of monomer release in comparison with no treatment group.

3. Removal effects of unreacted monomer in group ¥² was statistically significant in comparison with group¥°and group¥±.

These results revealed that mechanical method using pumice and rubber cup is the most effective in removing residual monomer and may be valuable to be used effectively in clinic.

Å°¿öµå

Ä¡¸é¿­±¸Àü»öÁ¦;¸ð³ë¸Ó;°í¼º´É ¾×ü Å©·Î¸¶Åä±×·¡ÇÇ;Ç¥¸éó¸®
Pit and fissure sealant;Monomer;HPLC;Surface treatment

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI