Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

´ÜÀÏÄ¡ ÀÓÇöõÆ®¿¡¼­ °íÁ¤Ã¼¿Í Áö´ëÁÖ Á÷°æÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ¿¡ µû¸¥ ±¤Åº¼º ÀÀ·Â ºÐ¼®

ÀÌÁøÇÑ, Á¶Çý¿ø,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌÁøÇÑ ( Lee Jin-Han ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
Á¶Çý¿ø ( Cho Hye-Won ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº ÀÓÇöõÆ® °íÁ¤Ã¼¿Í Áö´ëÁÖ°£ÀÇ Á÷°æ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁöÁöÁ¶Á÷¿¡ ¹ß»ýÇÏ´Â ÀÀ·Â¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Æò°¡ ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡´Â ¼¼ °¡Áö Á÷°æ(4.0, 5.0, 6.0§®)ÀÇ 3i ÀÓÇöõÆ® °íÁ¤Ã¼¿¡ Áö´ëÁÖÀÇ Á÷°æÀ» ´Þ¸®ÇÏ¿© ¼öº¹ÇÏ°í, ÇÏÁß Á¶°Ç(15, 30 lb)¿¡ µû¶ó ÀÓÇöõÆ® ÁöÁöÁ¶Á÷¿¡ ¹ß»ýÇÑ ÀÀ·ÂÀÇ Á¤µµ¿Í ºÐÆ÷¸¦ ±¤Åº¼º ÀÀ·Â ºÐ¼®¹ýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ºñ±³, ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿¬±¸°á°ú °íÁ¤Ã¼ÀÇ Á÷°æÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇÒ¼ö·Ï, »óºÎ º¸Ã¶¹°¿¡ °¡ÇØÁö´Â ÇÏÁß¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© °íÁ¤Ã¼ º¯¿¬ºÎÀÇ ÀÀ·ÂÁýÁßÀÌ ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç, »óºÎ º¸Ã¶¹°ÀÇ ±Ù¿ø½É Æø°æÀ» Áõ°¡½ÃÅ°´Â °ÍÀ̳ª, ÀÓÇöõÆ® °íÁ¤Ã¼ÀÇ Á÷°æ¿¡ ºñÇØ ÀÛÀº Áö´ëÁÖ¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº °íÁ¤Ã¼ ÁÖÀ§ÀÇ ÀÀ·Â¾ç»ó¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pattern and the magnitude of stress distribution in the supporting tissues surrounding implant fixture with different diameter of implant fixtures(3i implant, ¨ª4.0, ¨ª5.0, ¨ª6.0§®) and UCLA abutments(¨ª4.1, ¨ª5.0, ¨ª6.0§®) using photoelastic stress analysis. Photoelastic model was made with PL-2 resin(Measurements Group, Raleigh, USA) and three implants of each diameter were placed in the mandibular posterior edentulous area distal to the canine. Individual crowns were fabricated using UCLA abutments. Photoelastic stress analysis was carried out to measure the fringe order around the implant supporting structure under simulated loading conditions(15 lb, 30 lb). The results were as follows; 1. The more the diameter of implant fixture was increased, the less the stress concentration on cervical area of fixture was observed under loading. 2. Increasing mesiodistal diameter of implant superstructure had no much influence on stress distribution around implant fixture. 3. The use of smaller abutment had no influence on stress distribution around implant fixture. The use of smaller abutment diameter than that of implant fixture had no favorable effect on implant supporting tissue at biomechanical consideration.

Å°¿öµå

±¤Åº¼ºÀÀ·ÂºÐ¼®;ÀÀ·ÂºÐ»ê
photoelastic stress analysis;stress distribution

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI