Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¼¼ °¡Áö ´Ù¸¥ Àη¹ÀÌ ¿Íµ¿ ÇüÅ°¡ CEREC3 CAD/CAMÀÇ º¯¿¬ ¹× ³»¸é °£±Ø¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

INFLUENCE OF THREE DIFFERENT PREPARATION DESIGNS ON THE MARGINAL AND INTERNAL GAPS OF CEREC3 CAD/CAM INLAYS

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Á¸ÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 34±Ç 3È£ p.177 ~ 183
¼­´ö±Ô, ÀÌ¿µ¾Æ, ÀÌÀ±, ³ëº´´ö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¼­´ö±Ô ( Seo Deog-Gyu ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
ÀÌ¿µ¾Æ ( Yi Young-Ah ) - °üµ¿´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¸íÁöº´¿ø Ä¡°ú
ÀÌÀ± ( Lee Yoon ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
³ëº´´ö ( Roh Byoung-Duck ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ¼¼ °¡Áö ´Ù¸¥ Ä¡¾Æ »èÁ¦ ÇüÅ¿¡ µû¶ó Á¦ÀÛµÈ CEREC3 CAD/CAMÀÇ Àη¹ÀÌÀÇ º¯¿¬ ¹× ³»¸é °£±ØÀ» ºñ±³ Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ̾ú´Ù. CEREC3 Àη¹ÀÌÀÇ Á¦ÀÛÀ» À§ÇØ ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ Á¦½ÃµÈ ¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¶ó °¢ ±º´ç 10°³ÀÇ ½ÃÆíÀ» Áغñ ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Á¦ I ±º-±â´É ±³µÎ¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ´Â ÀüÅëÀû ¹æ½ÄÀÇ capping°ú shoulder margin, Á¦ II ±º-±³µÎ¸¦ ¼öÆòÀ¸·Î ÆòÆòÇÏ°Ô »èÁ¦ÇÏ´Â ´Ü¼øÈ­µÈ ¿Íµ¿ ÇüÅÂ, Á¦ III ±º-±³µÎÀÇ ¿ÏÀüÇÑ »èÁ¦¿Í shoulder marginÀ» °®´Â °¡Àå ´Ü¼øÈ­µÈ ÇüÅ·Π¼¼ ±ºÀÇ ½ÃÆíÀ» Á¦ÀÛÇÏ¿´´Ù. CEREC3·ÎºÎÅÍ Á¦ÀÛµÈ Àη¹À̸¦ ´ëÀÀÄ¡¾Æ¿¡ Á¢Âø½ÃŲ ÈÄ, Ä¡¾Æ ±³ÇÕ¸éÀÇ Áß½ÉÀ» Áö³ª°Ô Çù¼³¸é ¹æÇâÀ¸·Î microsaw¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Àý´ÜÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌÈÄ StereomicroscopeÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© 20¹èÀ²¿¡¼­ È®´ë ¿µ»óÀ» ÃÔ¿µÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±×¸®°í ¹Ì¸® Á¤ÇسõÀº marginal, axial, angle, Horizontal ±âÁØÁ¡¿¡¼­ Leica application suite ÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ½ÃÆí°ú Ä¡¾Æ »çÀÌÀÇ º¯¿¬ ¹× ³»¸é °£±ØÀ» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÏ¿øºÐ»êºÐ¼®À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© °°Àº ±âÁØ ÁöÁ¡¿¡¼­ ¼¼ ±º »çÀÌÀÇ Â÷À̸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, °¢ ±º ¾È¿¡¼­ ¿©·¯ ÁöÁ¡ »çÀÌÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ ¶ÇÇÑ ¾Ë¾Æº¸¾Ò´Ù. Tukey¡¯s test·Î 95% À¯ÀǼöÁØ¿¡¼­ »çÈÄ °ËÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¼¼ ±º ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­ º¯¿¬ ºÎÀ§¿¡¼­ °£±ØÀÌ °¡Àå ÀÛ¾ÒÀ¸¸ç, º¯¿¬ °£±ØÀº Á¦ I ±º , Á¦ II ±º, Á¦ III ±º ÀÇ ¹üÀ§¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù. ³»¸é °£±ØÀº Á¦ I ±º , Á¦ II ±º , Á¦ III ±º ÀÇ ¹üÀ§¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â°í horizontal wall ºÎÀ§¿¡¼­ °¡Àå Å« °£±ØÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. CEREC3 CAD/CAM½Ã½ºÅÛÀ»»ç¿ëÇÑ Àη¹ÀÌ Á¦ÀÛ¿¡ À־ »õ·Ó°Ô Á¦¾ÈµÈ µÎ °¡ÁöÀÇ ´Ü¼øÈ­µÈ ¿Íµ¿ ÇüÅ´ º¯¿¬ ¹× ³»¸é °£±ØÀÌ ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ ±³µÎ ÇÇ°³ ¿Íµ¿ Çüź¸´Ù ¿ì¼öÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal gaps in CEREC3 CAD/CAM inlays of three different preparation designs. CEREC3 Inlays of three different preparation designs (n=10) were fabricated according to Group I-conventional functional cusp capping/shoulder preparation, Group II-horizontal reduction of cusps and Group III-complete reduction of cusps/shoulder preparation. After cementation of inlays. the bucco-lingual cross section was performed through the center of tooth. Cross section images of 20 magnifications were obtained through the stereomicroscope. The gaps were measured using the Leica application suite software at each reference point. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey¡¯s test (<). The marginal gaps ranged from 80.0 to for Group I, 42.0 to for Group II, 51.0 to for Group III. The internal gaps ranged from 90.5 to for Group I, 80.0 to for Group II, 79.7 to for Group III. The gaps of each group were the smallest on the margin and the largest on the horizontal wall. For the CEREC3 CAD/CAM inlays, the simplified designs (groups II and III) did not demonstrate superior results compared to the traditional cusp capping design (group I).

Å°¿öµå

¿Íµ¿ÇüÅÂ;º¯¿¬°£±Ø;³»¸é°£±Ø
CAD/CAM;preparation design;marginal gap;internal gap;CEREC3

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI