Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Biodentine°ú º¹ÇÕ·¹Áø, ±Û·¡½º¾ÆÀÌ¿À³ë¸ÓÀÇ ¹°Èí¼öµµ, ¹°¿ëÇصµ¿¡ °üÇÑ ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®

Comparison of water sorption / solubility of Biodentine, composite resin and glass ionomer cement

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úÀÇ»çÇùȸÁö 2019³â 57±Ç 5È£ p.264 ~ 268
ÀÌÀÇÁß, È«Á¤¹Î, ¹ÎÁ¤¹ü,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌÀÇÁß ( Lee Ui-Jung ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
È«Á¤¹Î ( Hong Jung-Min ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
¹ÎÁ¤¹ü ( Min Jeong-Bum ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract


Objectives: This study aimed to measure the water sorption / solubility of Biodentine, composite resin and glass ionomer cement.

Materials and Methods: The materials used in this study were Biodentine(BD), Filtek Z250(FZ) and Ketac Molar(KM). Twenty disc-shaped specimens of each material were prepared of 6mm diameter and 1mm thickness. All specimens were desiccated for 24 hours and weighed(m1). After then, They were immersed in distilled water and stored at 37¡ÆC. 1 week later, They were washed with running water, wiped with absorbent paper and weighed(m2). Finally, They were dried for 24 hours and weighed(m3). Water sorption and solubility, net water uptake were calculated. Results: KM and BD showed high water sorption than FZ(P<0.05). KM and BD exhibited similar water sorption(P<0.05). BD exhibited high solubility than KM(P=0.012). BD exhibited high net water uptake than FZ(P=0.008).

Conclusion: Biodentine showed higher water sorption, solubility and net water uptake than Filtek Z250 and Ketac Molar. Within limitation of this study, it is not recommended to use Biodentine for permanent restoration.

Å°¿öµå

Water sorption; Water solubility; Biodentine; Permanent restoration

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI