Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®ÀÇ film thickness°¡ °£Á¢ º¹ÇÕ ·¹Áø ¼öº¹¹°ÀÇ Á¢Âø È¿À²¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸

EFFECT OF FILM THICKNESS OF RESIN CEMENT ON BONDING EFFICIENCY IN INDIRECT COMPOSITE RESTORATION

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Á¸ÇÐȸÁö 2010³â 35±Ç 2È£ p.69 ~ 79
ÀÌ»óÇõ, ÃÖ°æ±Ô, ÃÖ±â¿î,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌ»óÇõ ( Lee Sang-Hyuck ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø Ä¡ÀÇÇаú Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
ÃÖ°æ±Ô ( Choi Kyoung-Kyu ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø Ä¡ÀÇÇаú Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
ÃÖ±â¿î ( Choi Gi-Woon ) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø Ä¡ÀÇÇаú Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸´Â ¿©·¯ ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®ÀÇ film thickness¿¡ µû¸¥ »ó¾ÆÁú°ú °£Á¢ ·¹Áø ¼öº¹¹° °£ÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼ÀÎÀå °áÇÕ °­µµ¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ°í, °¢ ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®ÀÇ ÁßÇÕ ¼öÃà ¹× ±¼°î °­µµ, ź¼º °è¼ö¸¦ ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®Çϸç, Á¢Âø °è¸é ¹× ÆĴܸéÀÇ ÁÖ»çÀüÀÚ Çö¹Ì°æ °üÂûÀ» ÅëÇÏ¿© ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®ÀÇ film thickness°¡ ·¹Áø °£Á¢ ¼öº¹¹°ÀÇ Á¢Âø È¿À²¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ°íÀÚ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. º¹ÇÕ ·¹ÁøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®ÀÎ Variolink II¿Í Duo-Link, Á¢ÂøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®ÀÎ Panavia F¿Í Rely X UnicemÀÇ 4°¡Áö ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´°í, °¢°¢ÀÇ ½Ã¸àÆ®¸¦ film thickness¿¡ µû¶ó < (control)ÀÇ ´ëÁ¶±º°ú (T50), (T100), (T150)ÀÇ ½ÇÇ豺À¸·Î ³ª´©¾î ÃÑ 16°³ÀÇ ±ºÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÏ¿´´Ù. µ¥ÀÌÅÍ´Â ANOVA¿Í Duncan¡¯s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05)¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Åë°è ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù; 1. Variolink ¥±´Â ¸ðµç film thickness¿¡¼­ Á¢ÂøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®º¸´Ù ³ôÀº °áÇÕ °­µµ¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³ÂÁö¸¸(p < 0.05), Duo-Link´Â ´ëÁ¶±ºÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÏ°í´Â Åë°èÇÐÀû À¯ÀÇÂ÷°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù(p > 0.05). 2. Film thickness°¡ Áõ°¡ÇÒ¼ö·Ï º¹ÇÕ ·¹ÁøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®ÀÇ °áÇÕ °­µµ´Â À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ°Ô °¨¼Ò(p < 0.05)ÇÏ´Â °æÇâÀ» º¸ÀÎ ¹Ý¸é, Á¢ÂøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®´Â Åë°èÇÐÀû À¯ÀÇÂ÷°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù(p > 0.05). 3. Panavia F´Â Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ°Ô ³·Àº ÁßÇÕ ¼öÃà·®À» ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù(p <0.05). 4. ±¼°î °­µµ¿Í ź¼º °è¼ö´Â º¹ÇÕ ·¹ÁøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®°¡ Á¢ÂøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®º¸´Ù À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ°Ô ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù(p < 0.05). 5. FE-SEM °üÂû °á°ú °áÇÕ °­µµ°¡ ³ôÀº º¹ÇÕ ·¹ÁøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®´Â ±ÕÀÏÇÑ Á¢ÂøÃþ°ú Àß ¹ß´ÞµÈ resin tag ¼Ò°ßÀ» º¸¿´À¸³ª, Á¢ÂøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®´Â ºÒºÐ¸íÇÑ Á¢ÂøÃþ°ú resin tag ¼Ò°ßÀ» ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. ÆÄ´Ü¸é °üÂû¿¡¼­ º¹ÇÕ ·¹ÁøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®´Â È¥ÇÕÇü Æı« ¾ç»óÀ» ³ªÅ¸³ÂÀ¸³ª Á¢ÂøÇü ·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®´Â Á¢Âø¼º Æı« ¾ç»óÀ» ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of film thickness of various resin cements on bonding efficiency in indirect composite restoration by measurement of microtensile bond strength, polymerization shrinkage, flexural strength and modulus, fractographic FE-SEM analysis. Experimental groups were divided according to film thickness (< -control, -T50, -T100, -T150) using composite- based resin cements (Variolink II, Duo-Link) and adhesive-based resin cements (Panavia F, Rely X Unicem). The data was analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan¡¯s multiple comparison test (p < 0.05). The results were as follows ; 1. Variolink II showed higher microtensile bond strength than that of adhesive-based resin cements in all film thickness (p < 0.05) but Duo-Link did not show significant difference except control group (p > 0.05). 2. Microtensile bond strength of composite-based resin cements were decreased significantly according to increasing film thickness (p < 0.05) but adhesive-based resin cements did not show significant difference among film thickness (p > 0.05). 3. Panavia F showed significantly lower polymerization shrinkage than other resin cements (p < 0.05). 4. Composite-based resin cements showed significantly higher flexural strength and modulus than adhesive-based resin cements (p < 0.05). 5. FE-SEM examination showed uniform adhesive layer and well developed resin tags in composite-based resin cements but unclear adhesive layer and poorly developed resin tags in adhesive-based resin cements. In debonded surface examination, composite-based resin cements showed mixed failures but adhesive-based resin cements showed adhesive failures.

Å°¿öµå

·¹Áø ½Ã¸àÆ®;°£Á¢ º¹ÇÕ ·¹Áø ¼öº¹¹°;Á¢Âø È¿À²
Resin cement;Film thickness;Indirect composite restoration;Bonding efficiency

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI