Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

´Ù¾çÇÑ ±³Á¤¿ë Á¢ÂøÁ¦ÀÇ Ç¥¸é°ÅÄ¥±â¿Í Ç¥¸é¿¡³ÊÁö ¿ä¼Ò ºÐ¼®

Surface roughness and surface free energy components of various orthodontic adhesives

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2006³â 36±Ç 5È£ p.360 ~ 368
¾ÈÈ¿¹ü, ¾È¼®ÁØ, ³²µ¿¼®,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¾ÈÈ¿¹ü ( Ahn Hyo-Beom ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
¾È¼®ÁØ ( Ahn Sug-Joon ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
³²µ¿¼® ( Nam Dong-Seok ) - ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç

Abstract

Ä¡°ú¿ë Àç·áÀÇ Ç¥¸éƯ¼ºÀº ¼¼±Õ ºÎÂø¿¡ Áß¿äÇÑ ¿ªÇÒÀ» ÇÑ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ´Ù¼¸ Á¾·ùÀÇ ±¤ÁßÇÕ ±³Á¤¿ë Á¢ÂøÁ¦(ºÒ¼Ò¸¦ ¹æÃâÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â ¼¼ Á¾·ùÀÇ ÄÞÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹Áø, ºÒ¼Ò¸¦ ¹æÃâÇÏ´Â ÄÞÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹Áø ÇÑ Á¾·ù, ·¹Áø º¯Çü ±Û·¡½º¾ÆÀÌ¿À³ë¸Ó ½Ã¸àÆ® ÇÑ Á¾·ù)ÀÇ Ç¥¸éƯ¼ºÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. Ç¥¸é°ÅÄ¥±â´Â °øÃÊÁ¡ ·¹ÀÌÀúÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´°í, Á¢ÃË°¢°ú Ç¥¸é¿¡³ÊÁö ¿ä¼Ò´Â sessile drop method¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú ±³Á¤¿ë Á¢ÂøÁ¦°£ Ç¥¸é°ÅÄ¥±â´Â °¢ Àç·á°£ Ç¥¸é°ÅÄ¥±â Â÷ÀÌ°¡ $0.05\;{\mu}m$ ÀÌÇÏ·Î »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î ÀûÁö¸¸ °¢ Àç·á »çÀÌ¿¡ À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ´Â Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. Transbond XT¿Í Enlight´Â Monolok2¿Í Lightbond º¸´Ù À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ´ú °ÅÄ¥¾ú´Ù. Á¢ÃË°¢°ú Ç¥¸é¿¡³ÊÁö ±¸¼º¼ººÐÀº Á¢ÂøÁ¦ »çÀÌ¿¡ À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ´Â Å« Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Âµ¥ ƯÈ÷ ·¹Áø º¯Çü ±Û·¡½º¾ÆÀÌ¿À³ë¸Ó¿Í ÄÞÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹Áø Á¢ÂøÁ¦°£¿¡ Á¢ÃË°¢°ú Ç¥¸é¿¡³ÊÁö¿¡¼­ Ä¿´Ù¶õ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ·¹Áø º¯Çü ±Û·¡½º¾ÆÀÌ¿À³ë¸ÓÀÇ °æ¿ì ÄÞÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹Áø Á¢ÂøÁ¦¿¡ ºñÇØ À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ÀÛÀº Á¢ÃË°¢°ú ³ôÀº Ç¥¸é¿¡³ÊÁö¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç ÄÞÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹Áø Á¢ÂøÁ¦º¸´Ù °­ÇÑ ±Ø¼º, ƯÈ÷ °­ÇÑ ¿°±â¼º °æÇâÀ» º¸¿´´Ù º» ¿¬±¸´Â ·¹Áø º¯Çü ±Û·¡½º¾ÆÀÌ¿À³ë¸Ó°¡ ÄÞÆ÷ÁöÆ® ·¹Áø Á¢ÂøÁ¦¿¡ ºñÇØ ¼¼±Õ ºÎÂø¿¡ À¯¸®ÇÑ È¯°æÀ» Á¦°øÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù.

Surface characteristics of dental materials play an important role in bacterial adhesion. The purpose of this study was to investigate surface characteristics of 5 different light-cured orthodontic adhesives (1 fluoride-releasing composite, 3 non-fluoride-releasing composites, and f resin-modified glass ionomer). Methods: Surface roughness was measured using a confocal laser scanning microscope. Contact angle and surface free energy components were analyzed using the sessile drop method. Results: Surface roughness was significantly different between adhesives despite a relatively small variation (less than $0.05\;{\mu}m$). Lightbond and Monolok2 were rougher than Enlight and Transbond XT. There were also significant differences in contact angles and surface free energy components between adhesives. In particular, considerable differences in contact angles and surface free energy components were found between resin modified glass ionomer and the composites. Resin modified glass ionomer showed significantly smaller contact angles in 3 different probe liquids and had higher total surface free energy and stronger polarity, with notably stronger basic property than the composites. Conclusion: Resin modified glass ionomer may provide a more favourable environment for bacterial adhesion than composite adhesives.

Å°¿öµå

±³Á¤¿ëÁ¢ÂøÁ¦;Ç¥¸é°ÅÄ¥±â;Ç¥¸é¿¡³ÊÁö
Orthodontic adhesives;Surface roughness;Surface free energy

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed