Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

SEM°ú 3Â÷¿ø À籸¼º¹ýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ¼öº¹¸éÀÇ À§Ä¡¿Í ¿Íµ¿ Å©±â¿¡ µû¸¥ ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâµµ ºÐ¼®

MICROLEAKAGE OF THE CLASS V CAVITY ACCORDING TO RESTORATION SITE AND CAVITY SIZE USING SEM AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Á¸ÇÐȸÁö 2005³â 30±Ç 2È£ p.112 ~ 120
¾çÀμ­, À±º´¸¸,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¾çÀμ­ (  ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ºñ´¢±â°úÇб³½Ç
À±º´¸¸ (  ) - ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ¼öº¹¸éÀÇ À§Ä¡¿Í ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ Å©±â¿¡ µû¸¥ ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâµµÀÇ Â÷À̸¦ È®ÀÎÇϱâ À§ÇØ 3Â÷¿ø À籸¼º¹ý¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ »ö¼ÒħÅõ·®°ú ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æ °Ë°æÀ» ÅëÇÑ º¯¿¬Æ´»õÀÇ ºñÀ²À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 32°³ÀÇ °ÇÀüÇÑ ´ë±¸Ä¡ÀÇ Çù/¼³¸é°ú ÀÎÁ¢¸é¿¡ °¢±â $2\;{\times}\;2\;{\times}\;1.5\;mm$ÀÇ ÀÛÀº ¿Íµ¿°ú $4\;{\times}\;2\;{\times}\;1.5\;mm$Å©±âÀÇ Å« 5±Þ ¿Íµ¿À» Çü¼º ÇÑ ´ÙÀ½, ÀÚ°¡ºÎ½ÄÇü Á¢Âø½Ã½ºÅÛÀ¸·Î Ä¡¸é ó¸®ÇÏ°í È¥ÇÕÇü º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀÎ Esthet X·Î ´ÜÀÏ ÃæÀüÇÏ¿´´Ù. 5µµ¿Í 55µµ »çÀÌ¿¡¼­ 1000ȸÀÇ ¿­¼øȯÀ» ½ÃŲ ´ÙÀ½, ·¹Áø º¹Á¦¹°À» Á¦ÀÛÇÏ°í SEM °Ë°æÀ» ÅëÇØ Àüü º¯¿¬±æÀÌ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ º¯¿¬Æ´»õÀÇ ºñÀ²À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ¿­¼øȯµÈ Ä¡¾Æ¿¡ $50\%$ Áú»êÀº ¿ë¾×À¸·Î »ö¼Ò¸¦ ħÅõ½ÃŲ ÈÄ ÀÚ°¡ÁßÇÕÇü ·¹Áø¿¡ Æ÷¸ÅÇÏ¿© 0.25 mmµÎ²²ÀÇ °£°ÝÀ¸·Î ¿¬¼ÓÀûÀ¸·Î °¥¾Æ³»¸é¼­ °¢°¢ÀÇ ´Ü¸é»óÀ» äµæÇÏ¿´´Ù. °¢ ´Ü¸é»óÀ» 3Â÷¿øÀ¸·Î À籸¼ºÇÏ¿© ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâµµ¸¦ Á¤·®ÀûÀ¸·Î Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 3Â÷¿ø »ö¼Ò ħÅõ·®ÀÇ À¯ÀǼº °ËÁ¤¿¡´Â Two-way ANOVA¿Í independent T-test¸¦, º¯¿¬Æ´»õÀÇ ºñÀ²¿¡´Â Mann-Whitney U test¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç , µÎ ¹æ¹ý »çÀÌÀÇ Spearman¡¯¡¯s rho test·Î Æò°¡ÇÏ¿© ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾ú´Ù. 1 ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâµµ´Â ¼öº¹¸éÀÇ À§Ä¡¿Í ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ Å©±â¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ¾Ò´Ù. Áï Çù/¼³¸é°ú ÀÛÀº ¿Íµ¿º¸´Ù´Â ÀÎÁ¢¸é°ú Å« ¿Íµ¿¿¡¼­ ´õ ¸¹Àº ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. 2. µÎ ¹æ¹ý »çÀÌ¿¡´Â ³ôÀº »ó°ü °ü°è¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù (»ó°ü°è¼ö = 0.614/P= 0.000). ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¿¬±¸ °á°ú·Î º¼ ¶§, Çù/¼³¸é°ú ÀÛÀº ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ ¼öº¹¹°º¸´Ù´Â ÀÎÁ¢¸é°ú Å« ¿Íµ¿ÀÇ ¼öº¹¹°¿¡¼­ ´õ ¸¹Àº ¹Ì¼¼´©ÃâÀ» º¸¿´À¸¹Ç·Î, ºÒÇÊ¿äÇÑ Ä¡Áú »èÁ¦¸¦ ÁÙÀÓÀ¸·Î½á º¯¿¬ºÎÀÇ ³ëÃâÀÌ Ä¿Áö´Â °ÍÀ» ¸·¾Æ¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

This study was done to evaluate whether there were any differences in microleakage of class V composite restorations according to restoration site and cavity size. Total sixty-four restorations were made in molar teeth using Esthet-X. Small ($2\;{\times}\;2\;{\times}\;1.5\;mm$) and large ($4{\times}2{\times}1.5\;mm$) restorations were made at the buccal/lingual surface and the proximal surface each. After 1,000 times of thermocycling ($5^{\circ}\;-\;55^{\circ}C$), resin replica was made and the percentage of marginal gap to the whole periphery of the restoration was estimated from SEM evaluation. Thermocycled tooth was dye penetrated with $50\%$ silver nitrate solution. After imbedding in an auto-curing resin, it was serially ground with a thickness of 0.25 mm. Volumetric microleakage was estimated after reconstructing three dimensionally. Two-way ANOVA and independent T-test for dye volume, Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage of marginal gap, Spearman¡¯¡¯s rho test for the relationship between two techniques were used, The results were as follows : 1. The site and size of the restoration affected on the microleakage of restoration. Namely, much more leakage was seen in the proximal and the large restorations rather than the buccal/lingual and the small restorations. 2. Close relationship was found between two techniques (Correlation coefficient = 0.614/ P = 0.000). Within the limits of this study, it was noted that proximal and the large restorations leaked more than buccal/lingual and the small restorations. Therefore, it should be strictly recommended large exposure of margins should be avoided by reducing unnecessary tooth reduction.

Å°¿öµå

¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâµµ;¼öº¹¸éÀÇ À§Ä¡;¿Íµ¿ Å©±â;3Â÷¿ø À籸¼º;ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚÇö¹Ì°æ

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI