Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±¸Ä¡ºÎ ÀÎÁ¢¸é ¿Íµ¿¿¡¼­ À¯µ¿¼º º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø ÀÌÀåÀçÀÇ µÎ²²°¡ Ä¡Àº º¯¿¬ºÎ ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

INFLUENCE OF FLOWABLE COMPOSITE LINING THICKNESS ON CERVICAL MICROLEAKAGE OF PROXIMAL BOX

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2008³â 35±Ç 2È£ p.259 ~ 267
Á¶À±Á¤, ±è¿µÁø, ±èÇöÁ¤, ³²¼øÇö, ±èÅ¿Ï,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¶À±Á¤ ( Cho Yun-Jung ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
±è¿µÁø ( Kim Young-Jin ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
±èÇöÁ¤ ( Kim Hyun-Jung ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
³²¼øÇö ( Nam Soon-Hyeun ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
±èÅ¿Ϡ( Kim Tae-Wan ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

±¸Ä¡ºÎ ÀÎÁ¢¸é ¿Íµ¿¿¡¼­ À¯µ¿¼º º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø ÀÌÀåÀçÀÇ µÎ²²°¡ Ä¡ÀºÃø º¯¿¬ÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ¹ß°ÅµÈ ¼Ò±¸Ä¡ ¹× ´ë±¸Ä¡ÀÇ ±Ù, ¿ø½É¸é¿¡ box ÇüÅÂÀÇ ¿Íµ¿(Çù¼³Æø°æ 3mm, ±Ù¿ø½ÉÆø°æ 2mm, »ó¾Æ¹ý¶û°æ°è »ó¹æ 1mm¿¡ Ä¡Àº º¯¿¬) 120°³¸¦ Çü¼ºÇÑ µÚ, ¹«ÀÛÀ§·Î 30°³¾¿ ¼±Á¤ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº 4°³ÀÇ ±ºÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÏ¿´´Ù. group I- Tetric ceram ÃæÀü±º(´ëÁ¶±º) group II- 0.5mm µÎ²²ÀÇ Tetric flow + Tetric ceram group III- 1.5mm µÎ²²ÀÇ Tetric flow + Tetric ceram group IV- 2.5mm µÎ²²ÀÇ Tetric flow + Tetric ceram »ö¼ÒħÅõ¹ýÀ¸·Î Ä¡ÀºÃø º¯¿¬ºÎ ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâÀ» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù. 1. group II´Â group I¿¡ ºñÇØ ³·Àº ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâÀ» º¸¿´´Ù(p<0.05). 2. group III, IV°ú group I »çÀÌ¿¡´Â Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù(p>0.05). 3. group II´Â group III, IV¿¡ ºñÇØ ³·Àº ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâÀ» º¸¿´´Ù(p<0.05). 4. ¸ðµç group¿¡¼­ Á¤µµÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ÀÖÀ¸³ª Ä¡°æºÎ¿¡¼­ ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. ÀÌ»óÀÇ °á°ú·Î, È¥ÇÕÇü º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀ¸·ÎÀÇ ±¸Ä¡ºÎ ÀÎÁ¢¸é ¿Íµ¿ ¼öº¹½Ã 0.5mm µÎ²²ÀÇ À¯µ¿¼º ·¹ÁøÀ¸·ÎÀÇ ¿Íµ¿Àú ÀÌÀåÀº Ä¡ÀºÃø º¯¿¬ÀÇ ºÀ¼â´ÉÀ» Çâ»ó½ÃÄÑ º¯¿¬ºÎ ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâÀ» °¨¼Ò½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.

This in vitro study aimed to investigate the influence of flowable composite lining with different thicknesses on the marginal quality. One hundred twenty cavities, each preparated with proximal boxtype( 3mm of bucco-lingual width, 2mm of mesio-distal depth and gingival margin of 1mm supra-CEJ) were randomly dived into four groups. group I : Tetric ceram filling alone(control group) group II: 0.5mm thickness Tetric flow + Tetric ceram filling group III: 1.5mm thickness Tetric flow + Tetric ceram filling group IV: 2.5mm thickness Tetric flow + Tetric ceram filling The followings are the results: 1. Group II showed significantly less microleakage compared to group I(control group)(p<0.05). 2. There was no statistically significant difference between group III, IV and group I(p>0.05). 3. Group II showed significantly less microleakage compared to group III, IV(p<0.05). 4. There was microleakage more or less in all group. It was concluded that 0.5mm flowable composite lining improved cavity adaptation and marginal sealing.

Å°¿öµå

ÀÎÁ¢¸é ¿Íµ¿;À¯µ¿¼º º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø;µÎ²²;¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâ
Proximal box;Flowable resin;Thickness;Microleakage

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI