Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

  • 제31권4호
  • /
  • Pages.300-311
  • /
  • 2006
  • /
  • 2234-7658(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-7666(eISSN)
대한치과보존학회 (The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

접착제와 와동형성의 차이에 따른 5급 복합레진 수복의 전향적 임상연구

PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THREE DIFFERENT BONDING SYSTEMS IN CLASS V RESIN RESTORATIONS WITH OR WITHOUT MECHANICAL RETENTION

  • 이경욱 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 정세준 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 한영철 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 손호현 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 엄정문 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 오명환 ((주)베리콤기술연구소) ;
  • 조병훈 (서울대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실)
  • Lee Kyung-Wook (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Choung Sae-Joon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han Young-Chul (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Son Ho-Hyun (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Um Chung-Moon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Oh Myoung-Hwan (Vericom R&D Center) ;
  • Cho Byeong-Hoon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 발행 : 2006.07.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 복합레진을 이용한 비우식성 치경부 5급 병소 수복에 있어서, 3가지 다른 접착제를, 유지구를 부여한 치아와 부여하지 않은 치아에 적용하였을 때의 임상적인 효능의 차이를 비교하기 위함이다. 총 150개의 치아를 각각 25개씩 6개의 군으로 나누었다. A군 : Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA, 4세대 접착제)를 사용하고 유지구를 부여하지 않음. B군 : SBMP 를 사용하고 유지구를 부여. C군 : BC Plus (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea, 5 세대 접착제)를 사용하고 유지구를 부여하지 않음. D군 : BC Plus를 사용하고 유지구를 부여. E군 : Adper Prompt (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany, 6 세대 접착제)를 사용하고 유지구를 부여하지 않음. F군 : Adper Prompt를 사용하고 유지구를 부여. 모든 치아는 복합레진인 Denfil (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea) 을 이용하여 충전하였다. 수복 직후와 수복 6 개월 후에 modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria에 따라 수복물을 임상적으로 평가하였다. 추가적으로 임상사진을 촬영하였으며, 에폭시 레진을 이용하여 복제한 후 주사전자현미경을 이용하여 이를 관찰하였다. 6개월 후 관찰 결과, alpha rating의 수가 각 실험군마다 동일하지는 않았지만, 통계적으로는 3가지의 접착제간에 유의할만한 차이는 없었고, 기계적인 유지구를 부여한 군과 부여하지 않은 군 간에도 유의할만한 차이는 없었다 (p < 0.05). 그러나 6개월의 관찰 기간은 일반적으로 기대되는 레진의 수명보다 짧기 때문에, 각 실험군 간의 차이를 알아보기 위해서는 추후 더 오랜 기간의 관찰이 요구 된다.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate prospectively the effect of different bonding systems and retention grooves on the clinical performance of resin restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty-nine healthy adults who had at least 2 NCCLs in their premolar areas were included in this study. One hundred and fifty teeth were equally assigned to six groups: (A) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA, 4th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (B) SBMP with retention grooves; (C) BC Plus (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea, 5th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (D) BC Plus with retention grooves; (E) Adper Prompt (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany, 6th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (F) Adper Prompt with retention grooves. All cavities were filled with a hybrid composite resin. Denfil (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea) by one operator. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-month recall, according to the modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria. Additionally, clinical photographs were taken and epoxy resin replicas were made for SEM evaluation. At 6-month recall, there were some differences in the number of alpha ratings among the experimental groups. But, despite the differences in the number of alpha ratings, there was no significant difference among the 3 adhesive systems (p < 0.05). There was also no significant difference between the groups with or without mechanical retention (p < 0.05). Follow-ups for longer periods than 6 months are needed to verify the clinical performance of different bonding systems and retention grooves.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Browning WD. Brackett WW. Gilpatrick RO. Retention of microfilled and hybrid resin-based composite in noncarious Class 5 lesions: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 24:26-30, 1999
  2. Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 22: 195-207, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(94)90107-4
  3. Bader JD. Levitch LC. Shugars DA. Heymann HO. McClure F. How dentists classified and treated noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assac 124:46-54. 1993 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1993.0112
  4. Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent 27: 117-123. 2002
  5. Smales RJ, Webster DA. Restoration deterioration related to later failure. Oper Dent 18: 130-137, 1993
  6. Smales RJ, Gerke DC. Clinical evaluation of lightcured anterior resin composites over periods of up to 4 years. Am J Dent 5:208-212. 1992
  7. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3 :45-64, 2001
  8. Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. ed 2. Illinois. Quintessence Publishing, 2001. p396
  9. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P. Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 3:237-245.2001
  10. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent 16:329-334.2003
  11. Agostini FG, Kaaden C, Powers JM. Bond strength of self-etching primers to enamel and dentin of primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 23 :481-486, 2001
  12. Kanemura N, Sano H. Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 27:523-530, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00008-1
  13. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 30:371-382,2002 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00064-7
  14. Borcic J, Anic I, Smojver I, Catic A, Miletic I, Ribaric SP. 3D finite element model and cervical lesion formation in normal occlusion and in malocclusion. J Oral Rehabil 32:504-510. 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01455.x
  15. Tanaka M, Naito T, Yokota M, Kohno M. Finite element analysis of the possible mechanism of cervical lesion formation by occlusal force. J Oral Rehabil 30:60-67. 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.00959.x
  16. McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH. Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc 129:593-599, 1998 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0277
  17. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 11:117-125,1995 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(95)80046-8
  18. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res 79: 1385-1391. 2000 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345000790060601
  19. Wucher M, Grobler SR. Senekal PJ. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations. Am J Dent 15:274-278, 2002
  20. Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Vazquez O, Watson RE, Wilson N. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 14:296-302, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00525.x
  21. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 87: 369-377, 1973 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1973.0421
  22. Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH. Tay FR. Effects of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent 30:83-90, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00002-7
  23. Uno S, Abo T, Tanaka T, Sano H. In vitro sealing performance of two one-step adhesive systems in cervical cavities. J Adhes Dent 6:211-219, 2004
  24. Yoshida E, Uno S. Voids formation along the bonding interface between a smeared dentin surface and all-inone adhesives. Dent Mater J 23:643-649, 2004 https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.23.643
  25. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Garcia-Godoy F, Yiu CK. Singlestep, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. Silver tracer penetration evidence. Am J Dent 17:315-322,2004
  26. Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Anauate-Netto C, Amore R, Lewgoy HR. Cordeiro HJ, Dutra-Correa M, Castilhos N. Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months. Am J Dent 18:135-140,2005
  27. Duke ES, Robbins JW, Snyder DS. Clinical evaluation of a dentinal adhesive system: three-year results. Quintessence Int 22:889-895, 1991
  28. Duke ES, Lindemuth J. Variability of clinical dentin substrates. Am J Dent 4:241-246, 1991
  29. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J 3rd. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent 5:315-317,1992
  30. Tilliss TS, Keating JG. Understanding and managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Dent Hyg 76:296-310, 2002

피인용 문헌

  1. Comparison of marginal microleakage between low and high flowable resins in class V cavity vol.34, pp.6, 2009, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.6.477
  2. Clinical Effectiveness of Different Polishing Systems and Self-Etch Adhesives in Class V Composite Resin Restorations: Two-Year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial vol.42, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2341/16-104-C