Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Fine diamond bur¿Í Fine metal strip¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ Ä¡°£ Ä¡Áú»èÁ¦½Ã Çü¼ºµÇ´Â ÀÚ¿¬Ä¡ ¹ý¶ûÁú Ç¥¸é¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºñ±³

A Comparison Between the Pattern of Enamel Surfaces Produced by Fine diamond bur and Fine metal strip Reproximation Methods

´ëÇÑÅëÇÕÄ¡°úÇÐȸÁö 2013³â 2±Ç 1È£ p.11 ~ 20
Àü¼ºÇö, ±è¿µÁø, ±¹À±¾Æ, ±è»óÈÆ, ¾È¼Ò¿¬,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Àü¼ºÇö ( Jun Sung-Hyun ) - ºÐ´ç ¿ÃÄ¡°ú
±è¿µÁø ( Kim Young-Jin ) - °¡Å縯´ëÇб³ ÀÓ»óÄ¡°úÇдëÇпø ±³Á¤Çаú
±¹À±¾Æ ( Kook Yoon-Ah ) - °¡Å縯´ëÇб³ ¼­¿ï¼º¸ðº´¿ø Ä¡°ú±³Á¤°ú
±è»óÈÆ ( Kim Sang-Hoon ) - ¿ö½ÌÅÏÁÖ¸³´ëÇб³ »ýÈ­Çаú
¾È¼Ò¿¬ ( An So-Youn ) - ¿ø±¤´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ »êº»Ä¡°úº´¿ø

Abstract


The purpose of this study was to compare the smoothness of enamel surfaces produced by two different reproximation methods : fine diamond bur and fine metal strip. Natural enamel surfaces, enamel surfaces stripped with fine diamond bur (20¥ìm), and enamel surfaces stripped with metal strip (Dentarum) were evaluated with the profilermeter and a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Four subjects who had at least three bicuspid extractions were selected for this study and their bicuspid enamel surfaces were divided into three groups. : Group I : natural enamel surface. Group II : enamel surface stripped with a fine diamond bur. Group III : enamel surface stripped with a metal strip(Dentarum). The results were as follows. 1. According to the profilemeter roughness test, a comparison between groups I and II and a comparison between groups I and III showed statistic significance, while a comparison between groups II and III did showed no statistic significance. 2. SEM photographs of the natural enamel surface showed individual variation in the pattern of enamel surface. Subsequent stripping with a fine diamond bur in vitro resulted in small, smooth and regular furrows. Subsequent stripping with metal strip in vitro produced wide and irregular furrows. 3. A plaque index test in vivo revealed that the sample with roughened natural enamel surface had higher plaque accumulation with a broader disclosing area compared to the surfaces of groups II and III. Even though there were differences in the pattern of enamel surface between groups II and III, the roughnness of enamel surfaces for group II was similar to that of group III. In the case of a enamel surface with large furrows, subsequent stripping of the enamel surface with a fine diamond bur or a fine metal strip decreased plaque retention.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸