Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Ä¡±Ù õ°ø Ä¡·á Àç·áÀÇ »ýüģȭ¼ºÀÇ ºñ±³

COMPARISON OF BIOCOMPATIBILITY OF FOUR ROOT PERFORATION REPAIR MATERIALS

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Á¸ÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 34±Ç 3È£ p.192 ~ 198
°­¹Î°æ, ¹èÀÎÈ£, °íÁ¤ÅÂ, ȲÀ±Âù, ȲÀγ², ¿À¿ø¸¸,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
°­¹Î°æ ( Kang Min-Kyung ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø º¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
¹èÀÎÈ£ ( Bae In-Ho ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¾à¸®Çб³½Ç
°íÁ¤Å ( Koh Jeong-Tae ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¾à¸®Çб³½Ç
ȲÀ±Âù ( Hwang Yun-Chan ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø º¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
ȲÀγ² ( Hwang In-Nam ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
¿À¿ø¸¸ ( Oh Won-Mann ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø º¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract

À̹ø ¿¬±¸´Â Ä¡±Ù õ°øÀÇ Ä¡·á Àç·áÀÎ white mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)¸¦ ÈçÈ÷ »ç¿ëµÇ´Â calcium hydroxide liner (), glass ionomer cement (GIC), ±×¸®°í MTA¿Í À¯»çÇÑ ¼ººÐÀ» °¡Áø Portland cement¿Í ¼¼Æ÷µ¶¼º ½ÇÇèÀ¸·Î »ýü ģȭ¼ºÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ¼¼Æ÷µ¶¼ºÀÇ Á¤µµ´Â MG-63 ¼¼Æ÷¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇØ ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚ Çö¹Ì°æÀû °üÂû°ú ¼ö¿ë¼º tetrazolium salt¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ Èí±¤µµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ (XTT assay)ÇÏ¿© Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. SEM °üÂû¿¡¼­, 1ÀÏ°ú 3ÀÏ° ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­ GIC¿Í MTA, Portland cement Ç¥¸é¿¡¼­´Â Àß ºÎÂøµÈ ¼¼Æ÷¸¦ º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù. ¹Ý¸é¿¡, Dycal Ç¥¸éÀÇ ¼¼Æ÷µéÀº µÕ±Û°í ºÎÂøµÇÁö ¾ÊÀº ¾ç»óÀ» º¸¿© ÁÖ¾ú´Ù. XTT assay¿¡¼­´Â DycalÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÑ ¸ðµç Àç·á¿¡¼­ À¯»çÇÏ°Ô ³ôÀº ¼¼Æ÷ È°¼ºµµ¸¦ º¸¿©ÁÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ÀÌ´Â SEM °üÂû ¼Ò°ß°ú ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. À̹ø ¿¬±¸´Â MTA°¡ »ýüģȭÀûÀÎ Àç·á¶ó´Â °ßÇظ¦ µÞ¹ÞħÇÑ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ Portland cement¿Í GIC¿¡¼­µµ MTA¿Í À¯»çÇÑ ¼¼Æ÷¹ÝÀÀÀ» º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù.

This study was carried out in order to determine in vitro biocompatibility of white mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and to compare it with that of the commonly used materials, i. e. calcium hydroxide liner (Dycal), glass ionomer cement (GIC), and Portland cement which has a similar composition of MTA. To assess the biocompatibility of each material, cytotoxicity was examined using MG-63 cells. The degree of cytotoxicity was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and a colorimetric method, based on reduction of the tetrazolium salt 2,3 bis {2methoxy 4nitro 5[(sulfenylamino) carbonyl] 2H tetrazolium hydroxide} (XTT) assay. The results of SEM revealed the cells in contact with GIC, MTA. and Portland cement at 1 and 3 days were apparently healthy. In contrast, cells in the presence of Dycal appeared rounded and detached. In XTT assay, the cellular activities of the cells incubated with all the test materials except Dycal were similar, which corresponded with the SEM observation. The present study supports the view that MTA is a very biocompatible root perforation repair material. It also suggests that cellular response of Portland cement and GIC are very similar to that of MTA.

Å°¿öµå

»ýüģȭ¼º;¼¼Æ÷µ¶¼º
Dycal;Glass-ionomer cement;MTA;Portland cement;Biocompatibility;Cytotoxicity

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI