Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Implant¿¡ »ç¿ëµÇ´Â CAD/CAM Àü¿ë zirconia abutmentÀÇ Ç¥¸éÀû°ú µðÀÚÀο¡ µû¸¥ À¯Áö·Â Â÷ÀÌ

Differences in retention of the reduction direction depending on

´ëÇÑÄ¡°ú±â°øÇÐȸÁö 2010³â 32±Ç 4È£ p.325 ~ 333
³²Åøð, ±èÇÑ°ï, ±èº´½Ä, Àӽôö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
³²Åøð ( Nam Taeg-Mo ) - ±â»ÝÄ¡°ú±â°ø¼Ò
±èÇÑ°ï ( Kim Han-Gon ) - ¿µ³²´ëÇб³ »çȸÇаú
±èº´½Ä ( Kim Byung-Sik ) - ´ë±¸»ê¾÷Á¤º¸´ëÇÐ Ä¡±â°ø°ú
Àӽôö ( Lim Si-Duk ) - ´ë±¸»ê¾÷Á¤º¸´ëÇÐ Ä¡±â°ø°ú

Abstract


The aim of this study is to make some basic materials to find retention force difference based on the total height of CAD/CAM zirconia abutment used for implant, retention force difference based on how to regulate the height of the abutment, retention force difference based on the size and retention force difference based on the design group.
The retention force was measured by being pulled at the speed of 1mm/min after being combined with zirconia block and abutment using Temp-BOND of Kerr. The experiment was done at the research lab of OSTEM in Busan by useing UNIVERSAL TESTING MACHINE on March 3rd, 2010. The final conclusion was reached as follows through analyzing the amessed results.
1. After analysing the total height and the retention force, p-value had minor difference by 0.01 statistically.
Namely, 3§®, 4§®, 5§® had the retention force difference and we could see retention force difference on 3§® and 5§® at the post test.
2. After analyzing how to regulate the height and retention force, p-value had minor difference by 0.000 statistically. Namely, 1§® and 2§® had the retention difference and we could see that 1§® and 2§® with the total height had retention difference.
3. After analyzing the retention force based on the size, p-value had minor retention force difference by 0.000 statistically. Namely, 7 different size had retention force difference and we could see the size 21.9§®, 32.9§®, 32.9§®,
38.4§® , 48.9§® and 54.9§® had retention force difference.
4. After analyzing the retention force based the design, p-value had retention force difference by 0.000 statistically. Namely 9 different design group had retention difference and we could see that 9 design group with 5.6.7.8 design group and 9 design group with 1.2.3.4. design group had retention force.

Å°¿öµå

abutment;CAD/CAM;Implant;zirconia

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI