Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¼­·Î ´Ù¸¥ ½ºÄµ ¹æ½ÄÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© CAD/CAM¿¡ ÀÇÇØ Á¦ÀÛµÈ ÄÚÇÎÀÇ º¯¿¬ ¹× ³»¸éÀÇ ÀûÇÕ¼º

Marginal and Internal Fit of Copings Made by CAD/CAM using Different Scanning Methods

±¸°­È¸º¹ÀÀ¿ë°úÇÐÁö 2013³â 29±Ç 4È£ p.366 ~ 376
Á¶¿µ¹ü, Á¤ÀçÇå, ±èÈñÁß,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Á¶¿µ¹ü ( Cho Young-beom ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø º¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
Á¤ÀçÇå ( Chung Chae-Heon ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø º¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
±èÈñÁß ( Kim Hee-Jung ) - Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø º¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract

±¸°­³» ½ºÄµ(Group 1), ¸ðµ¨ ±¤ÇÐ ½ºÄµ(Group 2)°ú ¸ðµ¨ Á¢ÃË½Ä ½ºÄµ(Group 3)¹æ½ÄÀ¸·Î °¢°¢ zirconia ÄÚÇÎÀ» Á¦ÀÛÇÏ¿© ±¤ÇÐ Çö¹Ì°æÀ¸·Î ÀûÇÕ¼ºÀ» °üÂûÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÃøÁ¤Ç׸ñÀº º¯¿¬¿ÀÂ÷(absolute marginal discrepancy;AMD), º¯¿¬°£±Ø(marginal gap; MG), Ãø¹æ°£°Ý(gap of axial wall; GA), ¼±°¢°£°Ý(gap of line angle; GL)¿Í ±³ÇÕ°£°Ý(gap of occusal surface; GO)À̾úÀ¸¸ç, °á°ú´Â ¾Æ·¡¿Í °°¾Ò´Ù. 1. Group 1, Group 2, Group 3ÀÇ Æò±Õ AMD´Â °¢ °¢ 141.21¡¾42.94 §­, 140.63¡¾31.64 §­, 109.37¡¾28.42 §­ÀÌ°í, Group1, Group 2, Group 3ÀÇ MG´Â °¢ °¢ 82.52¡¾43.99 §­, 90.28¡¾27.93 §­, 66.55¡¾28.77 §­¿´´Ù. AMD¿Í MG´Â °¢ ±×·ì¿¡¼­ Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿©ÁÖÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(Anova test, P>0.05). 2. Group 2ÀÇ GA°¡ Group 1°ú Group 3¿¡ ºñÇØ Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô ÀûÀº ¼öÄ¡¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù(Anova test, P<0.05). 3. Group 1ÀÇ GL°ú GO°¡ ´Ù¸¥ ±×·ì¿¡ ºñÇØ Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î ³ôÀº ¼öÄ¡¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù(Mann-whitney test(P<0.05). ¼¼ °¡Áö ½ºÄµ ¹æ½ÄÀ¸·Î Á¦ÀÛµÈ zirconia ÄÚÇÎÀº ¼¼¶ó¹Í º¸Ã¶ÀÇ °¡Àå Áß¿äÇÑ Æò°¡ ¿ä¼ÒÀÎ AMD¿Í MG¿¡¼­ ¼­·Î Åë°èÇÐÀû Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of coping made by CAD/CAM using different scanning methods. Zirconia coping was made by each CAD/CAM system followed by intra-oral scanning, model optical scanning and model contact scanning. It was embedded into Epoxy Resin and was cut by buccal to lingual. AMD (Absolute marginal discrepancy), MG (Marginal gap), GA (Gap of axial), GL (Gap of line angle) and GO (Gap of occlusal) of each sample were measured. The result is as followed; 1. The mean value of AMD in Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 are 141.21¡¾42.94 §­m, 140.63¡¾31.64 §­, 109.37¡¾28.42 §­. The averages of MG in Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 are 82.52¡¾43.99 §­, 90.28¡¾27.93 §­, 66.55¡¾28.77 §­. Statistically there is no difference in AMD and MG among the three Groups (Anova, >0.05).
2. GA of Group 2 revealed statistically difference compared with Group 1 and Group 3 (Anova, P<0.05). 3. GL and GO of Group 1 showed statistically significant differences compared with Group 2 and Group 3 (Mann-whitney test (P<0.05). Zirconia copings made by 3 ways of scanning methods have no difference with conventional ceramics in AMD and MG which are known as the most important factors.

Å°¿öµå

½ºÄµ ¹æ½Ä; Áö¸£ÄÚ´Ï¾Æ ÄÚÇÎ; º¯¿¬°£±Ø; º¯¿¬¿ÀÂ÷; ÀûÇÕ¼º
Sacnning methods; Zirconia coping; AMD; MG; Fit

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI