Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¿­-°¡¾ÐÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ±Ý¼Ó µµÀç°ü°ú ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ ±Ý¼Ó µµÀç°üÀÇ º¯¿¬ ÀûÇÕµµ ºñ±³ ¿¬±¸

Comparative study in marginal fit of a pressed ceramic and feldspathic porcelain fused to metal restoration

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 2010³â 48±Ç 4È£ p.273 ~ 279
±èÀ±¿µ, ¹Ú¿øÈñ, À¯µ¿¿±, ÀÌ¿µ¼ö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±èÀ±¿µ ( Kim Yoon-Young ) - ÇѾç´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç
¹Ú¿øÈñ ( Park Won-Hee ) - ÇѾç´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç
À¯µ¿¿± ( You Dong-Yub ) - ÇѾç´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌ¿µ¼ö ( Lee Young-Soo ) - ÇѾç´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¿¬±¸¸ñÀû: º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ ±Ý¼Ó µµÀç°ü°ú ¿­-°¡¾ÐÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ±Ý¼Ó-µµÀç°üÀÇ º¯¿¬ ÀûÇÕµµ¸¦ ºñ±³ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù.

¿¬±¸Àç·á ¹× ¹æ¹ý: »ó¾Ç Á¦1¼Ò±¸Ä¡ ·¹Áø Ä¡¾Æ¸¦ ±³ÇÕ¸é 2.0 mm, Çù, ¼³¸é°ú ÀÎÁ¢¸éÀ» 1.0 mm µÎ²²·Î »èÁ¦ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, º¯¿¬ ÇüÅ´ chamfer marginÀ¸·Î ±×¸®°í Ãà¸é °æ»ç´Â 6µµ taper·Î »èÁ¦ÇÏ¿´´Ù. »èÁ¦ÇÑ ·¹ÁøÄ¡¸¦ º¹Á¦ÇÏ¿© ±Ý¼Ó ´ÙÀÌ 20°³¸¦ Á¦ÀÛÇÏ¿´°í, ÀÌ ±Ý¼Ó ´ÙÀ̸¦ Àλó äµæÇÏ¿© ÀÛ¾÷À» À§ÇÑ ¼®°í ´ÙÀ̸¦ Á¦ÀÛÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±Ý¼Ó µµÀç°ü°úPoM?? ½Ã½ºÅÛ (Ivoclar vivadent., Liechtenstein)ÀÇ µÎ ±×·ìÀ¸·Î ³ª´©¾î ±Ý¼Ó ÄÚÇÎÀ» °¢°¢ 10°³¾¿ ÃÑ 20°³¸¦ Á¦ÀÛÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ±¤ÇÐ Çö¹Ì°æÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© º¯¿¬ °£°ÝÀ» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. µµÀç Ã༺ ÈÄ,À§¿Í µ¿ÀÏÇÑ ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î º¯¿¬ °£°ÝÀ» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Åë°è 󸮴 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test¿Í Mann hitney U test¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù. 1. ±Ý¼Ó µµÀç°üÀº ÄÚÇÎ »óÅ (64.93 ¡¾ 12.48 ¥ìm)¿Í µµÀç Ã༺ ÈÄ (63.43 ¡¾ 12.86 ¥ìm)ÀÇ º¯¿¬ °£°Ý¿¡ À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ´Â Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. 2. PoM?? ½Ã½ºÅÛÀº ÄÚÇÎ »óÅ (50.00 ¡¾ 12.28 ¥ìm)¿ÍµµÀçÃ༺ÈÄ(56.72 ¡¾ 13.80 ¥ìm)ÀÇ º¯¿¬ °£°Ý¿¡ À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ´Â Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. 3. ±Ý¼Ó µµÀç°ü°úPoM?? ½Ã½ºÅÛ º¯¿¬ °£°ÝÀº À¯ÀǼº ÀÖ´Â Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

°á·Ð: PoM??½Ã½ºÅÛÀº ¿Î½º ¼Ò°á¹ýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇØ º¯È­°¡ ÀûÀº ±â¼úÀûÀÎ ÀÌÁ¡ÀÌ ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, ¼¼¹ÐÇÑ ±â¼úÀ» ¿ä±¸ÇÏ´Â Ã༺ ¹æ¹ý°ú´Â ´ëÁ¶ÀûÀ¸·Î ¿Î½º ¼ºÇüÀ¸·Î µµÀçÀÇ ¿ÏÀüÇÑ ÇüÅÂ
¸¦ ¸¸µé ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Æí¸®ÇÔÀ» Á¦°øÇÏ´Â ÀåÁ¡À» °¡Áø´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ °á°ú¿Í ÀÌ·± ÀåÁ¡À» Åä´ë·Î ¾ÕÀ¸·Î ÀÓ»óÀû »ç¿ëÀ» °í·ÁÇØ º¼ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal adaptation of a ceramic-pressed-to-metal restoration with traditional metal-ceramic restoration.

Materials and Methods : Duplicating the prepared resin tooth, 20 metal dies were fabricated. Twenty metal copings of 2 groups which were metal ceramic restoration and pressed to metal restoration were fabricated. The marginal opening of each coping was measured with Microscope (BX 60M-36E 41D¢ç: Olympus, Japan). After porcelain build-up, the marginal opening of metal ceramic restoration and pressed to metal restoration (PoM¢ç: Ivoclar vivadent., Liechtenstein) were also evaluated in the same method. The measurements were analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test and Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: Within the limits of this study, the results were as follows. 1. Metal-ceramic restorations in coping state (64.93 ¡¾ 12.48 ¥ìm) in compared with Metal ceramic restorations after porcelain build-up (63.43 ¡¾ 12.86 ¥ìm) had no significant difference in marginal adaptation. 2. Pressed-metal-ceramic restorations in coping state (50.00 ¡¾ 12.28 ¥ìm) in compared with Pressed metal ceramic restorations after porcelain build-up (56.72 ¡¾ 13.80 ¥ìm) had no significant difference in marginal adaptation. 3. Metal-ceramic restorations in compared Pressed-metal-ceramic restorations had no significant difference in marginal adaptation.

Conclusion: Pressed-metal-ceramic restorations have the advantage of being technically less change through using of the lost-wax technique and this allows for the convenience of a full-contour ceramic wax-up as opposed to the more technique-sensitive layering method. Pressed-metal-ceramic restorations may be considered in clinic on the basis of the result of this study and the advantage of this system.

Å°¿öµå

¿­-°¡¾Ð ±Ý¼Ó µµÀç°ü; º¯¿¬ ÀûÇÕµµ
Ceramic-pressed to metal restoration; Marginal adaptation

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed