¼¼·Î¸Ó, ¼¼¶ó¹Í ¹× º¹¶ø·¹ÁøÀÇ ±â°èÀû ¼ºÁúÀÇ ºñ±³¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸
A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF CEROMER, CERAMIC AND INDIRECT COMPOSITE RESIN
¹éÁ¤È, ¹ÚÀÏÀ±, ÃÖÀÍȯ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¹éÁ¤È ( ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ º¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
¹ÚÀÏÀ± ( ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ º¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
ÃÖÀÍȯ ( ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ º¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
KMID : 0362319990240010233
Abstract
Recently, a second generation composite resin system(ceromer) was introduced with
significantly improved mechanical properties.
The purpose of this study was to compare a ceromer with the other restorative
materials and to assess its clinical usefulness.
In this study, we used four restorative materials : amalgam (BESTALOY
), indirect composite resin (Clearfil CR Inlay ), ceromer
(Targis ) and ceramic (Vintage ).
And then we devided into four groups.
The materials of each group were as follows :
Amalgam group : BESTALOY (Dong Myung Dental Industrial Co.).
Composite Resin group : Clearfil CR Inlay (Kuraray).
Ceromer group : Targis Dentin (Ivoclar-Vivadent).
Ceramic group : Vintage (Shofu Inc.).
According to the above classification, we made samples through the polymerization of
BESTALOY , Clearfil CR Inlay and Targis
with separable cylindrical metal mold and firing of Vintage in a
investment mold.
And then, we measured and compared the value of compressive strength, diametral
tensile strength and Vicker's microhardness of each sample.
The results were as follows : 1. Amalgam showed the highest value of compressive
strength (390.37¡¾42.22MPa) and the value of ceromer was somewhere between ceramic
and indirect composite resin. There were significant differences among the experimental
groups(p<0.001).
2. Indirect composite resin showed the highest value of diametral tensile strength
(74.21¡¾15.33MPa) and there was no significant difference with ceromer. Ceromer was
higher diametral tensile strength than amalgam and ceramic (p<0.001).
3. Ceramic showed the highest value of microhardness (538.44¡¾37.38Hv) and the value
of ceromer was somewhere between ceramic and indirect composite resin. There were
significant differences among the experimental groups(p<0.001).
Å°¿öµå
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸