Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Gutta percha ÃæÀü½Ã µµ¸»Ãþ À¯¹«¿¡ µû¸¥ ±Ù°üº®°úÀÇ ÀûÇÕµµ¿¡ °üÇÑ ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æÀû ¿¬±¸

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Á¸ÇÐȸÁö 1992³â 17±Ç 2È£ p.365 ~ 382
¹®ÁÖÈÆ, À¯±¤¼º,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹®ÁÖÈÆ (  ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³
À¯±¤¼º (  ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³

Abstract


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adaptation of filling material to the dentinal walls of root canals with and without smear layer.
Fifty extracted upper and lower anterior teeth were selected, and the root canals were instrumented with K - files 1mm short of the apical foramen by step - back method.
The teeth were randomly divided into two groups of 25 each : in the group I, smear layers were not removed, and in the group II, smear layers were removed by 15% EDTA solution.
Again the two groups 25 teeth were randomly divided into unfilled contol group and filling groups(lateral, ultrasonic, ULTRAFIL, McSpadden compaction group).
Upon completion of root canal filling, the teeth were grooved on the both the labial and lingual surfaces and then split with mallet and chisel.
Each specimens were examined with JSM-840 Scanning Electron Microscope(JEOL., Japan).
@ES The results were as follows:
@EN 1. In the contol group, dentinal tubules of group I couldn't be distinguished in the canal wall, but those of group II appeared to be open and patient.
2. In the filling group I, the tubular penetration of the sealer or gutta percha couldn't be seen, but in the filling groups of group II, it could be seen except McSpadden compaction group.
3. In the filling groups, ULTRAFIL group showed the best adaptation of filling material to root canal wall among the group I, and lateral and ultrasonic condensation group showed the worst adaptation in group I, II.
4. Generally, the group II showed better adaptation of filling material to root canal wall than the group I.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI