Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Ä¡°ü º¸Ã¶¹° Á¦ÀÛ¿¡ »ç¿ëµÇ´Â Ä¡°ú¿ë ±Ý¼ÓÀÇ º¯¿¬ ÀûÇÕµµ ºñ±³

A comparison of marginal fitness by dental alloys

´ëÇÑÄ¡°ú±â°øÇÐȸÁö 2003³â 25±Ç 1È£ p.29 ~ 40
±è³²Áß, Ȳ°æ¼÷, ¹Ú¿ë´ö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±è³²Áß ( Kim Nam-Joong ) - ½ÅÈï½Ç¾÷Àü¹®´ëÇÐ Ä¡±â°ø°ú
Ȳ°æ¼÷ ( Hwang Kyung-Sook ) - ½ÅÈï´ëÇб³ Ä¡±â°ø°ú
¹Ú¿ë´ö ( Park Yong-Duk ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ¿¹¹æÄ¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract


This study was aimed to verify a comparison by dental alloys upon the marginal fitness of dentalprosthesis. Firstly, we waxed up on 45 epoxy resin dies, pressed the margin with hands, andidentified the marginal fitness with microscope. And we made a single direct spruing system typeof sprue by 3 dental alloys - metal crown alloys, PFM crown alloys, and gold crown alloys - each15, total 45 waxing up, adjusting W/P ratio and invested the cast ring. Then, we made the dentalprosthesis using the electric casting machine. In these processes we followed the manufacturer¡¯sinstructions, in order to maintain the other conditions from the inner and outer, which includedinvestment and burning out. After we tried on the dental prosthesis on epoxy resin dies, we havegot the means of marginal gap at 9 points with same distances, around the cervical line which waschecked already, using microscope(300). The results of this study were as follows :1. Metal crown alloys showed 2.9% better in marginal fitness than PFM crown alloys, and thedifference was not statistically significant(P=0.497). 2. Gold crown alloys showed 31.3% better in marginal fitness than Metal crown alloys, and thedifference was statistically significant(P=0.004).3. Gold crown alloys showed 32.4% better in marginal fitness than PFM crown alloys, and thedifference was statistically significant(P=0.002).4. We saw that Gold crown alloys was the best dental alloys in the marginal fitness among thethree.(P=0.049).

Å°¿öµå

dental casting alloys;marginal fitness;dental prosthesis

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI