Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø ÀûÃþ°è¸é¿¡¼­ oxygen inhibitionÀÇ ¿µÇâ¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

THE EFFECT OF OXYGEN INHIBITION ON INTERFACIAL BONDING BETWEEN COMPOSITE RESIN LAYERS

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2010³â 37±Ç 3È£ p.298 ~ 307
ÃÖ¼ö¹Ì, ¹ÚÀçÈ«, ÃÖ¼ºÃ¶, ±è±¤Ã¶, ÃÖ¿µÃ¶,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÃÖ¼ö¹Ì ( Choi Soo-Mi ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
¹ÚÀçÈ« ( Park Jae-Hong ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÃÖ¼ºÃ¶ ( Choi Sung-Chul ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
±è±¤Ã¶ ( Kim Kwang-Chul ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÃÖ¿µÃ¶ ( Choi Young-Chul ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀÇ ÀûÃþ°è¸é¿¡¼­ »ê¼Ò¾ïÁ¦Ãþ(oxygen inhibition layer:ÀÌÇÏ OIL)ÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» ¿¬±¸Çϱâ À§ÇØ, ¾ÆÅ©¸±¸¯ ¸ôµå(ÇÏÃþ) ¿¡ º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀÇ shade A3¸¦ ÃæÀüÇÑ ÈÄ Ç¥¸éÀÇ Á¶°ÇÀ» ´Þ¸®ÇÏ¿© ÁßÇÕÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç »óÃþÀº shade A1À¸·Î ÃæÀüÇÏ°í ÁßÇÕÇÏ¿´´Ù. ´ëÁ¶±º(OIL Á¸Àç), 1±º(OIL Çü¼º¾ïÁ¦), 2±º(OIL Çü¼º¾ïÁ¦+·¹ÁøÇ¥¸éÀÇ ¹Ì¹ÝÀÀ ¸ð³ë¸Ó Á¦°Å), 3±º(°¡¾ÐÇÏ¿¡ ÁßÇÕ), 4±º(¿­ÁßÇÕ), 5±º(½Ãȿó¸®), 6±º(½Ãȿó¸®+º»µùÁ¦ µµÆ÷)·Î ÇÏÃþÀÇ °è¸éÁ¶°ÇÀ» ´Ù¸£°Ô ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Àü´Ü°áÇÕ°­µµ¿Í ÆÄÀý¾ç»ó, Àüȯ·üÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù. 1. Àü´Ü°áÇÕ°­µµ ÃøÁ¤ °á°ú ´ëÁ¶±º°ú Á¦ 1±º »çÀÌ¿¡ Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù(p>0.05). 2. Á¦ 2±ºÀº ´ëÁ¶±º°ú 1±º¿¡ ºñÇØ ³·Àº °áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù(p<0.05). 3. Á¦ 3±ºÀº °¡Àå ³ôÀº °áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ º¸ÀÎ ¹Ý¸é, 4±ºÀº °¡Àå ³·Àº °áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. 4. 6±ºÀº 5±ºº¸´Ù µÎ ¹è Á¤µµ ³ôÀº °áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. 5. ´ëÁ¶±º°ú 1±º ¹× 3±º¿¡¼­´Â ÁÖ·Î ÀÀÁý¼º º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÆÄÀýÀÌ ÀϾ ¹Ý¸é 2±º, 4±º, 5±º°ú 6±º¿¡¼­´Â ÁÖ·Î Á¢Âø¼º °è¸éÆÄÀýÀÌ ÀϾ´Ù. 6. FTIR·Î Àüȯ·üÀ» ÃøÁ¤ÇÑ °á°ú 2±º¿¡¼­´Â 50.55%·Î °¡Àå ³ô¾Ò°í, ´ëÁ¶±º¿¡¼­´Â °¡Àå ³·¾Ò´Ù(p<0.05). Àü´Ü°áÇÕ°­µµ¿Í Àüȯ·üÀÇ °á°ú·Î º¸¾Æ, OILÀº º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø °è¸éÀÇ °áÇÕ¿¡ ÇʼöÀûÀÎ ¿äÀÎÀº ¾Æ´Ï¸ç, Ç¥ÃþÀÇ ¹Ì¹ÝÀÀ ¸ð³ë¸Ó°¡ °áÇÕ°­µµ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î º¸ÀδÙ. ÇâÈÄ °è¸é °áÇÕ°­µµ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¥ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¹Ì¹ÝÀÀ ¸ð³ë¸ÓÀÇ Á¤·®ÀûÀÎ ºÐ¼®À» ÅëÇÑ Ãß°¡ÀûÀÎ ¿¬±¸°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÈ´Ù.

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect on oxygen inhibition layer(OIL) for the interfacial bonding between resin composite layers, including shear bond strength, fracture modes and degree of conversion. The first layer of specimen was filled with Z-250(shade A3) and was cured for 40s. The second layer of specimen was filled with same composite(shade A1) and was cured for 40s. The first layer of specimens for each group were prepared by methods as followings. Control(curing in atmospheric air), Group1(curing against Mylar strip), Group2(scrubbed with a acetone-soaked cotton), Group3(using Tescera light cup), Group4(using Tescera heat cup), Group5(stored in disti1led water for 30days at ), Group6 (using bonding agent). The results were as follows: 1. There was no statistically significant different shear bond strength between control and group 1(p>0.05). 2. Group 2 showed significantly lower shear bond strength than control and group 1(p<0.05). 3. The observation of the fracture surface leads to the evidence that a major difference occurs in the case of control, group1 and group 3 samples which break mainly cohesively while the other groups break in majority adhesively. 4. The results of FTIR showed that the degree of conversion was the highest in group 2 and the lowest in control group(p<0.05). It can be concluded that an OIL is not necessary for bonding with composite resin. But if a reduced critical amount of the unreacted monomer is present, it was detrimental to bonding additional layers of composite. Further study, such as the quantitative analysis of the unreacted monomer are required.

Å°¿öµå

»ê¼Ò¾ïÁ¦Ãþ;¹Ì¹ÝÀÀ ¸ð³ë¸Ó;º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø;Àüȯ·ü;ÀûÃþ°è¸éÀÇ °áÇÕ
Oxygen inhibition layer(OIL);Unreacted monomer;Composite;Degree of conversion;Interfacial bonding

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI