Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

·¹ÁøÀç·á¿Í Ä¡¾ÆÇü¼º ¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¸¥ ÆÄÀýÆí ÀçºÎÂøÄ¡¾ÆÀÇ ÆÄÀýÀúÇ×¼º

Fracture Resistance of Incisal Tooth Fragment reattached with different Materials and Preparation

´ëÇѼҾÆÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2022³â 49±Ç 1È£ p.104 ~ 112
±èÁ¾¼º, ±è±â¹Î, ÀÌÁ¦½Ä, ±èÇöÁ¤, ³²¼øÇö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±èÁ¾¼º ( Kim Jong-Sung ) - Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry Department of Pediatric Dentistry
±è±â¹Î ( Kim Gi-Min ) - Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry Department of Pediatric Dentistry
ÀÌÁ¦½Ä ( Lee Jae-Sik ) - Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry Department of Pediatric Dentistry
±èÇöÁ¤ ( Kim Hyun-Jung ) - Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry Department of Pediatric Dentistry
³²¼øÇö ( Nam Soon-Hyeun ) - Kyungpook National University School of Dentistry Department of Pediatric Dentistry

Abstract

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº »ý¸®Àû Á¶°Ç¿¡¼­ ÆÄÀýÆí ÀçºÎÂø ½Ã ·¹ÁøÀç·á ¹× À¯ÁöÇüÅ¿¡ µû¸¥ ÆÄÀýÆíÀÇ ÆÄÀýÀúÇ×¼ºÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
¹ß°ÅµÈ 64°³ÀÇ ÀüÄ¡ºÎ Ä¡¾Æ¿¡ »ç¼± ¹æÇâÀÇ ´Ü¼øÄ¡°üÆÄÀýÀ» ÀçÇöÇÏ¿´´Ù. º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø Àç·á¿¡ µû¶ó¼­´Â À¯µ¿¼º º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø ¹× ÀÀÃàÇü º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÀçºÎÂøÀ» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. À¯ÁöÇüÅ·δ ´Ü¼ø ÀçºÎÂø, 1.0 mm ¡¿ 1.0 mm ¼øÃø chamfer bevel, 1.0 mm ¡¿ 1.0 mm ¼³Ãøchamfer bevel ¹× 1.0 mm ¡¿ 1.0 mm circumferential chamfer bevelÀ» ºÎ¿©ÇÑ ÈÄ ÀçºÎÂøÀ» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¸¸´ÉÀç·á½ÃÇè±â¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÀçºÎÂøµÈ Ä¡¾ÆÀÇ ¼³Ãø¸é¿¡ Á¤»ó ¾Æµ¿ÀÇ ÀýÄ¡°£°¢ÀÎ 125¡Æ·Î ºÎÇϸ¦ °¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀúÀ۾РÁ¶°Ç¿¡¼­´Â À¯µ¿¼º ·¹Áø°ú ÀÀÃàÇü ·¹Áø±º ¸ðµÎ ¼³Ãø chamfer±ºÀÇ ÆÄÀýÀúÇ×°­µµ´Â 28.28 ¡¾ 7.41 MPa°ú 27.54 ¡¾ 4.45 MPa·Î ´Ü¼ø ÀçºÎÂø±ºÀÇ ÆÄÀýÀúÇ×¼º°­µµÀÎ 17.21 ¡¾ 5.87 MPa°ú20.10 ¡¾ 6.00 MPaº¸´Ù À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ´õ ³ô¾Ò´Ù.
»ý¸®ÀûÀÎ ÀúÀ۾аú À¯»çÇÑ ¼³Ãø ¹æÇâÀÇ ÈûÀ» °í·Á ½Ã ÆÄÀýÆí ÀçºÎÂøÄ¡ÀÇ ÆÄÀýÆí À¯Áö·ÂÀº ´Ü¼ø ÀçºÎÂø¼úº¸´Ù ¼³Ãø chamfer À¯ÁöÇüŸ¦ Çü¼ºÇÏ¿´À» ¶§ À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ´õ Å« À¯Áö·ÂÀ» ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ ÀÓ»ó°¡´Â ÆÄÀýÆí ÀçºÎÂø¼ú ½Ã ÀúÀ۾п¡ ´ëÇÑ ÆÄÀý ÀúÇ×¼ºÀ» Çâ»ó½ÃÅ°±â À§ÇØ ¼³Ãø chamfer À¯ÁöÇüÅÂÀÇ ¼³°è¸¦ °í·ÁÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the fracture resistance of reattached tooth according to the resin materials and tooth preparation type under physiological conditions.
Uncomplicated crown fracture in the oblique direction was reproduced on the extracted 64 anterior teeth. Depending on the composite resin material, reattachment was performed using a flowable resin and a packable resin. Depending on retentive forms, reattachment was performed using simple reattachment, 1.0 mm ¡¿ 1.0 mm labial chamfer bevel, 1.0 mm ¡¿ 1.0 mm lingual chamfer bevel and 1.0 mm ¡¿ 1.0 mm circumferential bevel. A load was applied to the palatal surface of the tooth using a universal testing machine at an angle of 125 degree, which is the interincisal angle of normal children.
Under the masticatory pressure condition, fracture resistance of lingual chamfer groups was 28.28 ¡¾ 7.41 MPa and 27.54 ¡¾ 4.45 MPa, which was significantly higher than those of simple reattachment groups, 17.21 ¡¾ 5.87 MPa and 20.10 ¡¾ 6.00 MPa, in both flowable and packable resin groups.
When considering the lingual force similar to masticatory pressure, the fragment retention was significantly improved when the lingual chamfer was formed compared to the simple reattachment. Clinicians may consider the design of the lingual chamfer in order to improve fracture resistance to masticatory pressure during fragment reattachment.

Å°¿öµå

Uncomplicated crown fracture; Fragment reattachment; Fracture resistance

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI