Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

»èÁ¦±â±¸ÀÇ Á¾·ù¿¡ µû¸¥ ÀÚ°¡ºÎ½Ä ÇÁ¶óÀÌ¸Ó Á¢ÂøÁ¦ÀÇ ¹ý¶ûÁú¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹Ì¼¼Àü´Ü °áÇÕ°­µµ

Microshear bond strength of a self-etching primer adhesive to enamel according to the type of bur

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Á¸ÇÐȸÁö 2011³â 36±Ç 6È£ p.477 ~ 482
Á¤ÁøÈ£, Á¶¿µ°ï, ÀÌ¸í¼±,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¤ÁøÈ£ ( Jeong Jin-Ho ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
Á¶¿µ°ï ( Cho Young-Gon ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
ÀÌ¸í¼± ( Lee Myung-Seon ) - ¼­¿µ´ëÇб³ Ä¡À§»ý°ú

Abstract


Objectives:The purpose of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (uSBS) to enamel prepared with different burs and to determine what type of bur were chosen when a self-etching primer adhesive was used

Materials and Methods:Enamel of forty-two human molars were used. They were divided into one of six groups (n = 7), Group 1, coarse (125 - 150 ¥ìm) diamond bur; Group 2, standard (106 - 125 ¥ìm) diamond bur; Group 3, fine (53 - 63 ¥ìm) diamond bur; Group 4, extrafine (20 - 30 ¥ìm) diamond bur; Group 5, plain-cut carbide bur (no. 245); Group 6, cross-cut carbide bur (no. 557). Clearfil SE Bond and Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical Inc.) was bonded to enamel surface. The bonded specimens were subjected to uSBS testing

Results:The uSBS of Group 4 was the highest among groups and it was significantly higher than that of Groups 1, 2, 3, and 6 (p < 0.05), but it was not significantly different from that of Group 5.

Conclusions:Different burs used on enamel surface affected the microshear bond strengths of a self-etching primer adhesive to the enamel surface. In the case of Clearfil SE Bond, extrafine diamond and plain-cut carbide bur are recommended for bonding to enamel.

Å°¿öµå

Bond strength; Enamel; Self-etching primer adhesive; Type of bur

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI