Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Àڿܼ± 󸮰¡ ±³Á¤¿ë ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·Î ÀÓÇöõÆ® Ç¥¸é¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â È¿°ú

Effects of UV treatment on orthodontic microimplant surface after autoclaving

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úÀç·áÇÐȸÁö 2017³â 44±Ç 2È£ p.119 ~ 127
Tejani Harsh, Venugopal Adith, À¯¿øÀç, °æÈñ¹®,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
 ( Tejani Harsh ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡°ú±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
 ( Venugopal Adith ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡°ú±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
À¯¿øÀç ( Yu Won-Jae ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡°ú±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
°æÈñ¹® ( Kyung Hee-Moon ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø Ä¡°ú±³Á¤Çб³½Ç

Abstract

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº, ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ º¸°ü±â°£°ú Áõ±â°í¾Ð¸ê±ÕÀÌ Ç¥¸éÀÇ Åº¼ÒÇÔ·®¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ°ú, Àڿܼ± 󸮸¦ ÅëÇØ Åº¼ÒÇÔ·®À» °¨¼Ò½Ãų ¼ö Àִ°¡¸¦ Á¶»çÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. º¸°ü±â°£ÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» Á¶»çÇϱâ À§ÇØ, 11³â µ¿¾È 4°³ÀÇ ´Ù¸¥ ½ÃÁ¡¿¡¼­ Á¦ÀÛµÈ 4°³ÀÇ ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ® ±×·ìÀ» ºñ±³ ½ÇÇèÇÏ¿´°í, Áõ±â°í¾Ð¸ê±Õ°ú Àڿܼ± óġÀÇ È¿°ú¸¦ Æò°¡Çϱâ À§Çؼ­´Â 2°³ ±×·ì (»õ·Î Á¦ÀÛµÈ ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ®¿Í Á¦Á¶ ÈÄ 11³â °æ°úµÈ ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ®)À» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ½ÇÇèÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¹° Á¢ÃË°¢ ½ÇÇè, ¼¼Æ÷È°¼º °Ë»ç¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© Ç¥¸é ź¼ÒÇÔ·®ÀÌ ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ »ý¹°ÇÐÀû Ư¼º¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâµµ ÇÔ²² Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. ½ÇÇè°á°ú, 11³âÀÇ º¸°ü±â°£ µ¿¾È ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ® Ç¥¸éÀÇ Åº¼ÒÇÔ·®Àº Á¡Â÷ Áõ°¡ÇÔÀ», ¶ÇÇÑ Áõ±â°í¾Ð¸ê±Õ¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­ ź¼ÒÇÔ·®ÀÌ Áõ°¡µÊÀ», ±×¸®°í Àڿܼ± 󸮸¦ ÅëÇؼ­ ź¼ÒÇÔ·®À» À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô °¨¼Ò½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖÀ½À» °üÂûÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÇÑÆí, ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ® Ç¥¸éÀÇ Åº¼ÒÇÔ·® °¨¼Ò¿¡ µû¶ó ¼¼Æ÷È°¼º¿¡´Â ÁÖ¸ñÇÒ º¯È­°¡ ¾ø¾úÀ¸³ª Ç¥¸éÀÇ ÃÊÄ£¼ö¼ºÀÌ Áõ°¡µÊÀ» °üÂûÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÀÌ °á°ú·ÎºÎÅÍ, ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ±ä º¸°ü±â°£°ú Áõ±â°í¾Ð¸ê±Õ󸮴 ǥ¸éÀÇ Åº¼ÒÇÔ·®À» Áõ°¡½ÃÅ°Áö¸¸ Àڿܼ± 󸮴 ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ® Ç¥¸éÀÇ Åº¼ÒÇÔ·®À» °¨¼Ò½ÃÅ°°í ÃÊÄ£¼ö¼ºÀ» Áõ°¡½ÃÅ°¹Ç·Î ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ¾ÈÁ¤¼º Çâ»óÀ» À¯µµÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ̶ó´Â °á·ÐÀ» ¾ò¾ú´Ù.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of storage time and steam autoclaving on the accumulation of carbon content on the microimplant surfaces and the effectiveness of UV treatment in reducing the carbon contamination. The effects of storage time was tested using microimplants from four different years of manufacture across a span of eleven years. The effects of steam autoclaving and UV treatment on either increase or decrease of the carbon content were tested using two microimplant groups - the newly manufactured- and eleven year old microimplants. In addition to the surface carbon measurements, we further investigated the effect of surface carbon content on the biological properties of the microimplant, using a water contact angle test and cell activity test. Storage time showed a constant increase in the carbon contamination on the microimplants sufaces across eleven years. Among the newly manufactured microimplants there was a significant increase in carbon due to autoclaving and UV treatment significantly decontaminated the surface. Among the eleven years old microimplants, autoclaving did not effect the carbon content but UV treatment had a positive effect of the overall carbon content. UV treatment increased the superhydrophilicity, but there was no significant changes in the cell activity Increase in carbon contamination was due to storage time and steam autoclaving. However, UV treatment reduced the carbon contamination and increased superhydrophilicity of the microimplant surfaces.

Å°¿öµå

±³Á¤¿ë ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·ÎÀÓÇöõÆ®; źȭ¼ö¼Ò; Àڿܼ± óġ
Orthodontic MicroImplants; Hydrocarbon; UV treatment

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI