Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

À¯µ¿¼º ·¹ÁøÀÇ µÎ²²°¡ ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

THE EFFECT OF MARGINAL MICROLEAKGE ACCORDING TO THICKNESS OF FLOWBLE RESIN

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Á¸ÇÐȸÁö 2005³â 30±Ç 5È£ p.363 ~ 371
¼Û±â°­, Á¶¿µ°ï,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¼Û±â°­ (  ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³
Á¶¿µ°ï (  ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸´Â 2±Þ º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø ¼öº¹ ½Ã ´Ù¾çÇÑ µÎ²²ÀÇ À¯µ¿¼º ·¹Áø ÀÌÀåÀÌ ¹ý¶ûÁú ¶Ç´Â »ó¾ÆÁú Ä¡ÀºÃø º¯¿¬ºÎÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¹ß°ÅµÈ »ó, ÇÏ¾Ç ´ë±¸Ä¡ÀÇ ±Ù½É ¶Ç´Â ¿ø½É¸é¿¡ 2±Þ ¿Íµ¿À» Çü¼ºÇÏ°í È¥¼ºº¹ÇÕ·¹Áø¸¸À¸·Î ÃæÀüÇÑ ±º (´ëÁ¶±º)°ú À¯µ¿¼º ·¹ÁøÀ» Ä¡ÀºÃø¿¡ 0.5 mm (½ÇÇè 1±º), 1 mm (½ÇÇè 2±º), 2 mm (½ÇÇè 3±º) µÎ²²·Î ÀÌÀåÇÑ ÈÄ º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀ» ÃæÀüÇÑ ±ºÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÏ¿´´Ù. °¢ ±ºÀº $5^{\circ}$¿Í $55^{\circ}C$¿¡¼­ 500ȸ ¿­¼øȯÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÑ ÈÄ $2\%$ methylene blue¿¡ 24½Ã°£ µ¿¾È ħÀû½ÃÄÑ ±¤ÇÐ ÀÔüÇö¹Ì°æÇÏ¿¡¼­ º¯¿¬ºÎÀÇ »ö¼Ò ħÅõ¸¦ °üÂûÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú À¯µ¿¼º ·¹ÁøÀÇ ´Ù¾çÇÑ µÎ²²´Â º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø ¼öº¹¹°ÀÇ º¯¿¬ºÎ ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÃÆ´Ù. º¹ÇÕ·¹ÁøÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ±¸Ä¡ºÎ 2±Þ ¿Íµ¿ ¼öº¹ ½Ã ¹ý¶ûÁú ¶Ç´Â »ó¾ÆÁú º¯¿¬¿¡¼­ 0.5 mmµÎ²²·Î À¯µ¿¼º ·¹ÁøÀ» Àû¿ëÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâ °¨¼Ò¿¡ È¿°úÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.

This study investigated the effect of thickness of flowable resin lining on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations. 80 experimental teeth were prepared with class II preparations with enamel margin or dentin margin. Each group was devided into four groups according to flowable resin lining thickness ; Control group - no flowable resin lining, Group 1 - 0.5 mm flowable resin lining, Group 2 - 1 mm flowable resin lining, Group 3 - 2 mm flowable resin lining. The cavities were restored using Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive system, Filtek Flow and Filtek Z 250 composite resin. Following one day storage in distilled water, the restored teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles and immersed in $2\%$ methylene blue for 24 hours. The results of this study were as follows : 1. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the enamel margins was Group 1 < Control = Group 2 < Group 3. The microleakage of Group 3 was significantly higher than that of Control, Group 1 and Group 2 (p < 0.05). 2. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the dentin margins was Group 1 < Group 2 < Control < Group 3. The microleakage of Group 3 was significantly higher than that of Control, Group 1 (p < 0.05) 3. Compared with microleakage between the enamel and dentin margins, enamel margin group were significantly lower than dentin margin group.

Å°¿öµå

À¯µ¿¼º ·¹Áø µÎ²²;¹Ì¼¼´©Ãâ;¹ý¶ûÁú º¯¿¬;»ó¾ÆÁú º¯¿¬;»ö¼ÒħÅõ

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI