Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±¤ÁßÇÕÇü º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀÇ È­ÇÐÀû ºÐÇØ¿Í ¸¶¸ð¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

CHEMICAL DEGRADATION AND WEAR OF LIGHT-CURED COMPOSITE RESINS

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2007³â 34±Ç 2È£ p.273 ~ 284
¾ç±ÔÈ£, Á¤Èñ°æ, ÃÖ³²±â, ±è¼±¹Ì,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¾ç±ÔÈ£ ( Yang Kyu-Ho ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
Á¤Èñ°æ ( Jung Hee-Kyung ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÃÖ³²±â ( Choi Nam-Ki ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
±è¼±¹Ì ( Kim Seon-Mi ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸´Â ±¤ÁßÇÕÇü º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø Composan LCM Flow(Promedica, Germany), Clearfil ST(Kuraray medical, Japan) Durafil VS(Heraeus Kulzer, U.S.A), Point 4(Kerr, U.S.A)¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© °¢ Á¦Ç°ÀÇ ¹°¸®Àû, È­ÇÐÀû Æò°¡¸¦ ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¸¶¸ð½ÃÇè ÈÄ ¸¶¸ðµÈ ¸éÀÇ ±íÀ̸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´°í 0.1N NaOH¿¡ º¸°ü ÈÄ. °¢ Á¦Ç°ÀÇ ºÐÇØÀúÇ×¼ºÀ» ¹«°Ô¼Õ½Ç, Ç¥¸éÇÏ ºÐÇØÃþ ±íÀÌ, ¿ëÃâµÈ Si ³óµµ¸¦ ±âÁØÀ¸·Î Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æ°ú °øÃÐÁ¡ ·¹ÀÌÀú Çö¹Ì°æÀ¸·Î ºÐÇØ ÃþÀ» °üÂûÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù. 1. ¹«°Ô ¼Õ½Ç·®Àº 1.02{sim}6.04%±îÁö ´Ù¾çÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç Durafil VS¿¡¼­ °¡Àå ³ô¾Ò´Ù(6.04{pm}0.29%).
2. ºÐÇØÃþ ±íÀÌ´Â Durafil VSÀÌ °¡Àå ±í¾ú°í Clearfil ST, Point 4, Composan LCM Flow¼øÀ̾ú°í Point 4¿Í Composan LCM Flow´Â ´Ù¸¥ Á¦Ç°°ú À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù(p<0.001).
3. Si ¿ëÃâ·®Àº Clearfil ST°¡ °¡Àå ¸¹¾ÒÀ¸¸ç Durafil VS, Composan LCM Flow, Point 4 »çÀÌ¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù(p<0.001). 4. ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æ °üÂû½Ã Ç¥¸é ¾ç»ó ¹× ºÐÇØÃþ ±íÀ̸¦ °üÂûÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú°í °øÃÐÁ¡ ·¹ÀÌÀú Çö¹Ì°æ °üÂû½Ã NaOH ¿ë¾×¿¡ º¸°üÇÑ ÈÄ ¼öº¹ÀçÀÇ ±âÁú°ú ÃæÀüÁ¦ »çÀÌÀÇ °áÇÕÀÇ Æı« ¾ç»óÀ» °üÂûÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.
5. Ãִ븶¸ð±íÀÌ´Â Durafil VS, Composan LCM Flow, Point 4, Clearfil ST ¼øÀ¸·Î ³·¾ÒÀ¸¸ç À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(p>0.001).
6. °¢ Á¦Ç°ÀÇ Si ¿ëÃâ·®°ú ºÐÇØÃþ ±íÀÌ »çÀÌ(r=0.892, p<0.01), Si ¿ëÃâ·®°ú ¹«°Ô¼Õ½Ç »çÀÌ(r=0.736, p<0.01)¿¡´Â À¯ÀÇÇÑ »ó°ü°ü°è¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the resistance to degradation and to compare the wear resistance characteristics of four esthetic restorative materials in an alkaline solution(0.1N NaOH). The composite resins studied were Composan LCM flow(Promedica, Germany). Clearfil ST(Kuraray medical, Japan), Durafi VS1(Heraeus Kulzer, U.S.A), Point 4(Kerr, U.S.A). The results were as follows :
1. The mass loss of each brand was 1.02{sim}6.04% and highest value in Durafil VS(6.04{pm}0.29%).
2. The sequence of the degree of degradation layer depth was in descending order by Durafil VS, Clearfil ST, Point 4 and Composan LCM flow. There were significant differences between Point 4, Composan LCM flow and the others (p<0.001). 3. The sequence of the Si loss was in descending order by Clearfil ST, Durafil VS, Composan LCM flow and Point 4. There were significant differences among the materials (p<0.001).
4. On SEM, destruction of bonding between matrix and filler and on CLSM, the depth of degradation layer of specimen surface was observed.
5. The sequence of maximum wear depth was in descending order by Durafil VS, Composan LCM flow, Point 4 and Clearfil ST. There were no significant differences among the materials (p>0.001).
6. The correlation coefficient between Si loss and degradation layer depth (r=0.892, p<0.01) and Si loss and mass loss(r=0.736, p<0.01) were relatively high.
These results indicate that hydrolytic degradation, wear and another factor may consider as evaluation factors of composite resins.

Å°¿öµå

º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø;È­ÇÐÀû ºÐÇØ;¸¶¸ð
Composite resin;Hydrolytic degradation;Wear

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI