Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Á¢ÂøÁ¦ÀÇ Á¾·ù¿¡ µû¸¥ ħ½ÄÄ¡¾Æ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀÇ °áÇÕ°­µµ

COMPARISON OF MICROTENSILE BOND STRENGTH OF COMPOSITE RESTORATION TO ERODED ENAMEL BY SURFACE TREATMENT

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2011³â 38±Ç 4È£ p.348 ~ 354
À̼ø¿µ, ÀÌ°æÈ£, ³ëÈ«¼®, Á¤¼ºÈñ, ±è½Å,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À̼ø¿µ ( Lee Soon-Young ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌ°æÈ£ ( Lee Kyung-Ho ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
³ëÈ«¼® ( Noh Hong-Seok ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
Á¤¼ºÈñ ( Jeong Sung-Hee ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç
±è½Å ( Kim Shin ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¼Ò¾ÆÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

ħ½Ä ¹ý¶ûÁúÀÇ Ç¥ÃþÀº °ÇÀü ¹ý¶ûÁú°ú´Â ¹°¸®È­ÇÐÀû ¼º»óÀÌ ´Ù¸£¹Ç·Î ħ½Ä ¹ý¶ûÁú¸é¿¡ ´ëÇÑ º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀÇ °áÇÕ·ÂÀ» Áõ°¡½ÃÅ°±â À§ÇÑ ´ë¾ÈÀ¸·Î, ¹ý¶ûÁú ³»ÃþÀ¸·ÎÀÇ Ä§Åõ·ÂÀÌ Å¹¿ùÇÑ infiltrant resinÀ» ÀÀ¿ëÇÏ´Â ¹æ¹ýÀ» »ý°¢ÇÏ°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â ´Ù¾çÇÑ Á¤µµ·Î Àΰø ħ½ÄÀÌ À¯¹ßµÈ ¹ý¶ûÁú¸éÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î, infiltrant resin°ú/¶Ç´Â ±âÁ¸ÀÇ Á¢ÂøÁ¦¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÑ °æ¿ìÀÇ º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø °áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®ÇÒ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ½ÃµµµÇ¾ú´Ù. °ÇÀüÇÑ ¼ø¸éÀ» °¡Áø ¹ß°ÅµÈ »ó¾Ç À¯ÀüÄ¡¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î, Àΰøħ½Ä À¯¹ß Ƚ¼ö ¹× infiltrant resin°ú/¶Ç´Â ±âÁ¸ÀÇ Á¢ÂøÁ¦¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÑ ¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¶ó °¢ 20°³¾¿ÀÇ ½Ã·á¸¦ Á¦ÀÛÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, °¢ ±ºÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå °áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ°í, ÆÄÀý¸éÀÇ ÆÄÀý ¾ç»óÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù. ¹ý¶ûÁú Ç¥¸éÀÇ Ä§½Ä À¯¹ß Ƚ¼ö°¡ ´Ã¾î³¯¼ö·Ï °áÇÕ°­µµ°¡ ³·¾Ò´Ù(p<0.05). ±âÁ¸ÀÇ Á¢ÂøÁ¦ »óºÎ¿¡ infiltrant resinÀ» Ãß°¡ Àû¿ëÇÑ ±º, infiltrant resin¸¸ Àû¿ëÇÑ ±º, Á¢ÂøÁ¦¸¸ Àû¿ëÇÑ ±ºÀÇ ¼øÀ¸·Î ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå°áÇÕ°­µµ°¡ ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù(p<0.05). ÆÄÀý ¾ç»óÀÇ °üÂû¿¡¼­´Â Àΰø ħ½Ä À¯¹ß Ƚ¼ö°¡ ÀûÀº ±º ¹× infiltrant resinÀ» Àû¿ëÇÑ ±º¿¡¼­ ÀÀÁýÆÄÀýÀÇ ºñÀ²ÀÌ ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. °á·ÐÀûÀ¸·Î, ¹ý¶ûÁúÀÇ Ä§½Äµµ°¡ Ŭ¼ö·Ï º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø ¼öº¹¹°°úÀÇ °áÇÕ °­µµ´Â °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, infiltrant resinÀ¸·Î ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ÀûÂýÁ¦¸¦ ´ëüÇϰųª ÷°¡ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á °áÇÕ°­µµ¸¦ º¸¿Ï½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆǴܵǾú´Ù.

Composite resin has been widely used for eroded enamel. But, as there have been many reports about the differences in physicochemical characteristics of eroded enamel compared with sound enamel, an additional effort was thought necessary to obtain the optimal bond strength. As a possible answer, we came to think about the application of infiltrant resin which is known to have an excellent penetration capacity into enamel. This study was performed for the purpose of comparing the bond strength of composite restoration with or without infiltrant resin under adhesives on the artificially eroded enamel. 60 extracted sound maxillary primary incisors were selected and divided into group 1, 2, 3 according to the number of artificial erosion cycling for 5 minute duration in 1% citric acid of pH 3.2 at . And the labial surfaces were divided into 3 areas; group A, only resin adhesive was used, group I, only infiltrant resin, group IA, infiltrant resin followed by resin adhesive. Afterwards, every specimen was restored with composite resin. Microtensile bond strength was measured and failure modes were observed. The obtained results were as follows: 1. In comparing the bond strength by the degree of enamel erosion, it was revealed the highest bond strength in group 1, followed by group 2 and 3, showing the lowest bond strength in most eroded group(p<0.05). 2. In comparing the bond strength by surface treatment methods, group IA and I showed higher value than group A(p<0.05), with unsignificant difference between group I and IA(p>0.05). 3. In observation of failure mode, it was shown higher frequency of cohesive failure in order of 1-2-3 and IA-I-A. Conclusively, it was shown decreasing tendency of bond strength as the enamel is more eroded, and infiltrant resin was thought helpful to replace or add to the resin adhesive for optimal bonding with eroded enamel.

Å°¿öµå

ħ½Ä; ¹ý¶ûÁú; °áÇÕ°­µµ; º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø
Erosion; Enamel; Bond strength; Infiltrant resin; Composite resin

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI